Session

The last decade has seen a slow but steady emergence of online literary spaces in India, marked by the ubiquitous nature of the internet and digital technologies, growing mobile phone penetration and increased access to devices such as tablets and e-readers. By literary spaces we refer to online journals, magazines and blogs, as well as reading groups and discussion spaces focused on writing in English and Indian languages. These range from those exclusively focusing on contemporary literature to others that feature writing on news, culture and arts. These spaces raise some intriguing questions about the growth a new online or digital literary culture, which may be mapped through the evolution of reading and writing practices as very explicitly technologized practices, and the changes in the notion of text and textuality, scholarship and pedagogy, among other things.

Some examples of such spaces that have come up in the recent years are The Little Magazine [1], Muse India [2], Kritya [3], Coldnoon: Travel Poetics [4], Kindle [5], Almost Island [6], The Indian Quarterly [7] and among several others. Many of these journals have both an online and print presence, while some are purely online and seek to reach a diverse audience featuring different genres of writing. While many carry an eclectic mix of creative and critical writing, perceptions about readership on the internet often dictate the form and manner of writing that is featured. The much anticipated and debated ‘disappearance’ of long form writing is one of the questions that may be asked of the emergence of these literary journals, which have in some way re-imagined this form in the digital sphere and have been instrumental in its growth. So even as there are books on twitterature [8], there are interesting ways in which online literary journals have tried to define the space of contemporary writing on the internet in India.

Plan

This panel discussion proposes to examine this phenomenon of the growth of online literary journals to understand the imagination of the ‘digital’ in their practices of writing and publication, whether as medium, content or context, as a way to explore how writing and reading practices today have been shaped by these changes. This also includes questions on methods of literary analysis that may have changed with the advent of the digital, and from a broader perspective, the production of literary scholarship and pedagogy in India. Some questions that could be points of discussion are as follows:

1. What is the pedagogical role, if any of digital/online journals? Are they simply cost-effective modes of production of knowledge or are they indicative of some other form discrimination? Perhaps a discrimination between what gets read and what does not? Is a voluminous archive of nineteenth century writings of the same pedagogical merit as a list of 100 Hollywood romantic comedies? If the former is arguably much more educational, why then is the latter the source of the greatest traffic? Is pedagogy then a misnomer, and a non-entity in the world of online magazines?
2. Can the rise of online magazines be related with the rise of print culture and the subsequent rise of the novel? The novel was educational and, while English was still a very evolving language in the 17th and 18th centuries, the form helped both shape the language and educate the masses, bourgeoisie, and the aristocracy about the nuances of the still-nascent English language. Can a similar function be said to have been fulfilled by online journals? Or have they failed in playing this radical role of disseminating new language and new vocabulary, which is required to articulate new modes and conflicts within modernity — sexualities, queerness, televised elections, middle-eastern (Syrian, Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqi) mayhem in times of democracy, globalization, urbanization, travel, genocide, partition, terrorism, and so on? Are there any exceptions among the journals in being able to somehow fulfil the criteria of engendering a new language? What are the examples, if any? How popular are they?
3. Is online literature less literary than print? Is it more amenable to news, while print continues to be literary? Or is this only a misconception? Is online literature prone to non-serious, or populist sources of pedagogy, which serve more to titillate through trolling, humour, half-baked information, gossip, or is it playing a serious role too in portions? Apart from those newspapers and journals/magazines which also have print components, which are possibly the portals that create viable, meritorious, and universal categories of knowledge? Or, invocation of ‘merit’ and ‘universal’ essentially a flawed mechanism to judge online literatures?

Addressing some of above questions through a study of two or more online journals, this session will attempt to open them up to a broader discussion on the nature and growth of an online literary culture in India, and the need for and significance of research in this area.

Readings

None.

Notes

[1] See: http://www.littlemag.com/.

[2] See: http://www.museindia.com/.

[3] See: http://www.kritya.in/.

[4] See: http://coldnoon.com/.

[5] See: http://kindlemag.in/.

[6] See: http://almostisland.com/.

[7] See: http://indianquarterly.com/.

[8] See: http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/307055/twitterature-by-alexander-aciman/9780143117322/.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 3 #Literary Spaces : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Arup K Chatterjee is a doctorate in English from the Center for English Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His dissertation is titled ‘Hillmaking: Architecture and Literature from the Doon Valley.’ He has taught English, as Assistant Professor, at colleges in the University of Delhi. In 2014–15 he was the recipient of Charles Wallace fellowship to the United Kingdom. He is the
founding-chief-editor of Coldnoon: Travel Poetics (International Journal of
Travel Writing): www.coldnoon.com.

Puthiya Purayil Sneha is a researcher with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore. Her training is in English Literature, and she has previously worked in the area of access to higher education. Her areas of interest include methodological concerns in arts and humanities, digital media and cultures, higher education and pedagogy, and access to knowledge.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#LiterarySpaces was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

Indian politics had witnessed the entry of new social movements in the 1970s, adding a whole set of new issues, actors, and ways of activism to the older nationalist tradition. We suggest a similar change is now taking place, as different ways of governance and interventions aided by latest technologies are emerging in the social media. Websites, blogs, tweets, emails and online petitions are creating a new virtual space for politics, through information, propaganda, debates, appeals and mobilizations.

The proposed session will discuss this emerging field of power, critically considering its democratic potential and interrogating the political issues and ideas at stake in it. The aim is to tackle the new forms of civic and public-political engagements witnessed in the domain of social media, and analyze their implications for the theory and practice of democracy. In the process our papers would explore conceptual notions such as agency, political act and participation as well as notions of selfhood and subjectivity.

Plan

We will present four papers, with a question-answer and discussion session at the end. The papers will be addressing broadly three kinds of concerns.

• The first concern is to identify novel understandings of the political and political acts in the social media. We ask the following questions in this regard: What are the political issues and ideas at stake and how do they affect conventional understandings of democracy? Who are the new actors outside the fray of party-centered politics and how do they see what is political in the acts of internet-users? How are political institutions including parties reacting to the phenomena?
• The second concern relates to probing the new forms of political subjectivity that are emerging in this process. The questions here include: What kind of political actor is getting shaped by the forms of political participation engendered by the social media? How does the virtual nature of practice impact on questions of location and identity as determinants of political membership and political action? Is this nature of virtual participation too fluid for the state to control?
• The third concern relates to the forms of exclusion and inclusion that virtual participation entails. This involves questions like: What kind of social capital is necessary for talking part in the process and does it cut across cultural and economic divisions? What kinds of interest drive the social media? How does it shape the meaning of political concepts like representation and rights, accountability and political agency?

It is likely that we will raise more questions than we can answer at this point. However, we think it is important to raise them all the more in keeping with the questions that make up the focus of the conference, especially, the first question of how do we conceptualize, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India.

Readings

None.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 2 #Politics On Social Media : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Rinku Lamba is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies in
Jawaharlal Nehru University. She was educated in Delhi, Oxford and Toronto, and has a strong interest in modern Indian political thought, democratic theory, the history of western political thought, and contemporary political theory (especially secularism, liberalism and multiculturalism). Her published work includes essays on state power, nationalism, Ambedkar’s views on the reform of religion, and on the discourse about socio-religious reform in colonial India. She has held visiting positions at the Humboldt University and the University of Wurzburg, and research fellowships at the European University Institute and the universities of Victoria and Sydney.

Rajarshi Dasgupta is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, JNU. Formerly Fellow at the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, he primarily teaches Marxism and Biopolitics, while his research interests span radical politics, urbanization, contemporary labor and refugee histories. His recent publications include ‘The Ascetic Modality: A Critique of Communist Selffashioning’ in Nivedita Menon, Aditya Nigam and Sanjay Palshikar eds., Critical Studies in Politics: Exploring Sites, Selves, Power, and ‘The People in People’s Art and People’s War’ in Gargi Chakrabarty ed., People’s Warrior: Words and Worlds of P.C. Joshi.

Mohinder Singh is Assistant professor teaching political thought at the Centre for Comparative Politics and Political Theory, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. Before he joined JNU in April 2013, he was teaching at the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi. He finished his M. A. and doctorate (2003) from the Centre for Political Studies, JNU, New Delhi. For the last few years his research has been on the study of Hindi as the language of political discourse in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century North India with the main focus on the conceptualization of the domains of the social and the political. His recent publication is ‘Civilizing Emotions: Concepts in Nineteenth Century Asia and Europe.’ Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 2015 (Co-authored with Margrit Pernau, Helge Jordheim et. al.)

Valerian Rodrigues, currently National Fellow, ICSSR, has taught at the
Department of Political Science, Mangalore University, and Centre for Political Studies, JNU. His academic interest lies in Political Philosophy, Political Ideas and Institutions in India, Disadvantage, Marginality, and Preferential Public Policies. He has published extensively on these themes. He was Agatha Harrison Fellow, St. Antony’s College, Oxford (1989–1991), ICCR Chair at Erfurt University (2012), and Senior Visiting Professor at Wuerzburg University. He is a recipient of the Sri Pravananda Saraswati UGC National Award (2006) for Political Science.

Shefali Jha is Professor and teaches political philosophy and feminist political theory at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. She is interested in and writes on issues of constitutionalism and democracy in India.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#PoliticsOnSocialMedia was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

Up till now digital technologies have mostly served to create new markets opportunities for the large capitalist monopolies like Facebook, Apple and Google that dominate the global information economy. But what happens when the potential for disintermediation and market making that comes with digital technologies hit the bazaars for of the worlds ‘other economy,’ what Ravi Sundaram has called ‘pirate modernity.’ Indeed this is already happening in two inter-related ways.

First, the availability of cheap, copied or pirated digital goods like Shanzhai cell phones or pirated video games support a reinvigorated bazaar economy made up of small traders who eek out a living while providing informational goods to the broad popular market segments that large brands do not cater to. This is already an emerging phenomenon in India, Africa and large parts of South America, but similar forms of what Gordon Mathews and his colleagues call ‘globalisation from below’ are gaining an influence in Europe as well.

Second, the potential for disintermediation on the part of digital technologies like WhatsApp today and blockchain technologies in the near future provide a technical infrastructure for strengthening the organizational basis of such bottom-up markets and enable them to strengthen their standing vis-a-vis capitalist monopolies. Can the ‘pirate economy’ launch its own institution, its own capital markets and its own brands?

In this session we want to explore the future of bottom-up markets. What happens when traders on Delhi’s electronic bazaars can bypass middlemen connecting directly to their Chinese suppliers via WhatsApp; what happens when informal financial circuits like Hawala networks start operating blockchain technologies? Extrapolating from research on what is going on know we want to collectively imagine what the future might bring. What sort of economic social and, importantly political consequences might these changes bring about? How can we theorise this emergence and how does it challenge and force us to rethink basic categories like capitalism, markets and agency?

Plan

The sessions will start with presentations on traders in Delhi’s pirate bazaars, blockchain and the democratization of financial markets, impact of mobile connectivity on business and family interaction, and relationship between peer-to-peer, pirate economies, and large media corporations within cultures of circulation. The presentation will be brief (about 20 mins.) and will serve to open up discussions and constitutions form workshop participants.

Discussions will be centred on:

• What are interesting areas of study in understanding how digital technologies are changing the balance of power in the digital economy in India?
• What is the potential of digital technologies in relation to the mediation and transformation of bottom up economic processes in contemporary India?
• What are the new forms of injustices and/or imbalances are arising form these transformations?
• What is the political potential in digital disintermediation in relation to markets, beyond the ‘official paradigm of ecommerce and Uber-like platforms?

Readings

None.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 2 #Future Bazaars : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Maitrayee Deka teaches Sociology at the University of Essex.

Adam Arvidsson teaches sociology at the University of Milano, Italy. He runs a research project on Value Creation in Commons Based Peer Production financed by the European Commission, and has published widely on brands, creative industries, the political economy of social media platform and the digital economy in general. At present Adam’s research is focused on start-up and venture capital systems in Europe and Asia, and forms of economic organization in the ‘Sharing Economy.’ Adam is author of Brands. Meaning and Value in Media Culture (Routledge,2006), and more recently, The Ethical Economy. Rebuilding Value after the Crisis (Columbia University Press, 2013, with Nicolai Peitersen).

Rohini Lakshané is a technologist, Wikimedian, and public policy researcher. She is Director (Emerging Research) at The Bachchao Project, India, and former Program Officer, Centre for Internet and Society. She tweets @aldebaran14.

Ravi Sundaram is a Professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi. In 2000 he founded the Sarai programme at CSDS along with Ravi Vasudevan, and the Raqs Media Collective. Sundaram is the author of Pirate Modernity: Media Urbanism in Delhi (London 2009), and No Limits: Media Studies from India (Delhi, 2013). His current research looks at the worlds of circulation after the mobile phone, information fever, ideas of transparency and secrecy, and the postcolonial media event.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#FutureBazaars was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

Wikipedia is a group project, and people in the group need to have separate pages to discuss changes and improvements to Wikipedia’s content, be that an article, a policy, a help page, or something anything else. Reading these discussion pages is a vastly rewarding, slightly addictive, experience. Sometimes reading Wikipedia can ruffle feathers.

E.g. 1:

The song, Jana-gana-mana, composed originally in Bengali by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on January 24, 1950. It was first sung on December 27, 1911 at the Calcutta session of the Indian National Congress. [1]

Whereas Wikipedia entry of National anthem mentions thus:

“Jana Gana Mana is the national anthem of India. Written in highly Sanskritised (Tatsama) Bengali.” [2]

E.g. 2:

Are these beautiful waterfalls on the Kaveri River located in Tamil Nadu — or on the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka — or in Tamil Nadu on its border with Karnataka? Or is it really the Cauvery river, and Hogenakal Falls? [3]

Whatever you believe, be sure to bring a (Google) map to the debate, and point out that your opponent’s sources are not RS or NPOV!

E.g. 3:

Born of Serbian parents in a part of the Austrian Empire, which a short time later became a part of the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary and is now in Croatia. He eventually became a naturalized citizen of the US. [4]

So was he Serbian? Croatian? Austrian? Austro-Hungarian? Istro-Romanian? Jewish? American? Martian? You decide! But don’t forget to leave an edit summary saying how pathetic it is to choose any other version. (Guess who are we talking about?) Clue: He is inventor par excellence.

In this day and age where information is often a touch and go process, a forgotten mode, a solitary quest towards creating knowledge sounds romantic (almost). Networked collaborations (such as Wikipedia) which have created knowledge sites have led to democratic interpretation and assimilation of such knowledge. They also as a basic necessity have sprung up various modes of annotation, verifiability of the Knowledge thus produced and utility quotient of the same. After all, why create and hold on to information that no body really cares about.

Plan

In this discussion session, the co-leaders of the session shall attempt to peel out the benign face of the visible Wikipedia page(there is a hidden world out there) and discuss the political, technological and social contours of information available on Wikipedia. We shall take the participants through the various stages of discussion about a Wikipedia page and how discussions tend to alter the course of an article. How false consensus is proposed, consent is manufactured and how these efforts are usually defeated by ‘Answer People’ and ‘Vandal Fighters’. It is no less of a war than the one between information and mis-information. The discussion on, calculus, for instance, was host to some sparring over whether the concept of “limit,” central to calculus, should be better explained as an “average.”

This discussion session brings to the table questions of legitimisation of knowledge and the inherent hierarchies that operate even within open networks of collaboration and offers a critique on consumption oriented knowledge production. The session also aims to ask questions around knowledge as an agent that has levelled some of the earlier existing contours but has introduced some of its own and how that has changed our usages and shapes our experiences.

The session will involve an edit-a-thon on a topic that will be selected by the co-leaders of the session and live commentary on the discussion pages will be tracked for further analysis. The session intends to build a dialogue towards attempting to problematise the questions of the starkly hierarchical and segmented experiences that have played a significant role in production of knowledge in the era of new knowledge practices. The session also will question the ‘best practices’ in building consent in the present global techno-economic contours of the internet, and its effect on academic spaces, creative practice and intervention.

Readings

1. Using Talk Pages
2. Talk page guidelines
3. Tutorial on Wikipedia talk pages
4. Introduction to talk pages
5. A Wikipedia Reader (pdf, 6.6 MB)

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 2 #Wiki Shadows : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Tanveer Hasan works with the Wikimedia Foundation. He is
interested in understanding the politics of language that shapes our
understanding of knowledge, and also in exploring the processes of production ofknowledge in digital and humanities fields.

Rahmanuddin Shaik, currently working with the NTR Trust, is a Wikipedian and believes in FLOSS. He uses Internet as a tool to propagate his mother language Telugu. He writes technical and linguistic blog posts and columns in Telugu.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#WikiShadows (Techno-Political Contours of Knowledge Production on Wikipedia) was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

It was media theorist Marshall McLuhan who popularised the phrase ‘the medium is the message’; to him, different kinds of media engage the senses in different ways, affecting how we process it and engage with its contents. Before situating research in the digital space, it is important to ask ourselves: what is the nature of the medium are we dealing with here? How do people interact with it? What are the opportunities it provides and the risks it poses? How can we study new digital objects, such as online-first news outlets, podcasts, etc in a way that recognises the medium’s newness?

The proposed session is an exploration of a methodology that is informed and defined by specific characteristics of the medium, with a special focus on digital news and journalism in India. Through this, it seeks to tackle the first of the four key focus areas of the conference: How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?

Keeping this key question in mind, we ask: how can digital methods research contribute to the study of news and journalism in the digital space? How can we use digital objects such as tags, Likes, and Comments to understand how user feedback works in the new information economy? What can the interface of a news creation platform tell us about the changing roles of Indian journalists in today’s media environment? How can we formulate a methodology for studying the metamorphosis of a news story by using Twitter and what skills are required to gather and process information for research of this nature?

In order to inform our responses to such questions, we borrow from Richard Rogers’ adage ‘Follow the medium’ (Rogers 2013), which argues that “natively digital”(Ibid. 19) objects like tags, links, Likes or Comments, which originate in digital networks, cannot be fully understood with methods, such as, say content analysis; an example of a non-digital method that does not recognise its digital nature. The proposed session will make use of the general philosophy embodied by Rogers’ approach and urge participants to acknowledge the specific properties of the Internet as a medium and look at news and journalism as part of the larger media ecology of the web. This calls for the use of new methods that are digital in nature; the discussion on contemporary news should expand from how the news industry is coping with the digital transition, to how we can better understand the specific elements of this transition and use this understanding to reflect upon the changing nature of journalism and news itself.

In order to channel the discussion, the session proposes using the framework from one particular field of digital research: platform studies. With the advent of Web 2.0 and the emergence of the ‘web as platform’ (O’Reilly 2007) and the strengthening relationship between the news industry and social media platforms(‘Reuters Institute Digital News Report’ 2015), traditional as well as digital-born news sites are increasingly adopting a platform model. Therefore, platform studies makes for a fitting framework within which to understand the workings of these platforms, their technological and formal structures, and the specific ways in which they allow users to interact with news content.

Plan

The session will begin with a brief introduction to digital methods (Rogers 2013) and the field of ‘platform studies’ (Bogost and Montfort 2009; Gillespie 2010; Dijck 2013), which will serve as a loose framework through which to study existing news platforms as well as perform analyses on social media platforms as sites for news and journalism. This will be supplemented by the works of Anne Helmond (2015) and Tarleton Gillespie (2010).

Following this, participants will be divided into groups of four-six, with each group anchored by a volunteer, with added support from the two co-leaders. They will then be given the task of formulating a research question that makes use of one or more of the digital methods presented and are also required to frame a methodology that makes allowances for the particularities of the Indian news environment. The session will conclude with a brief discussion based on their findings.

The goal of the workshop will be to explore how digital methods can be aligned with current concerns about news and journalism in India, and open up avenues for research that acknowledges that online news occupies a space that includes natively digital objects and information architectures and hence demands research methods specific to this environment. The workshop also aims at reflecting on potential collaborations between researchers in media studies, data scientists and technologists in developing a comprehensive methodology using which to study digital media in India.

Readings

Gillespie, Tarleton. “The Politics of ‘Platforms’.” New Media & Society 12, no. 3 (2010): 347–364.

Rogers, Richard. “The End of the Virtual: Digital Methods,” Digital Methods. MIT press, 2013: 19–38.

Van Dijck, José. “Disassembling Platforms, Reassembling Sociality,” The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press, 2013: 24–44

References

Anderson, Christopher W. “Towards a Sociology of Computational and Algorithmic Journalism.” New Media & Society, 15, no. 7 (2013): 1005–1021.

Bogost, Ian, and Nick Montfort. 2009. “Platform Studies: Frequently Questioned Answers.” Digital Arts and Culture 2009 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/01r0k9br.pdf.

Helmond, Anne. 2015. Presentation by Anne Helmond — Becoming Data Point. Panel. Transmediale. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smXLCAGafqs

Lovink, Geert. 2008. Zero Comments: Blogging and Critical Internet Culture. New York: Routledge.

O’Reilly, Tim. 2007. ‘What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software’. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1008839. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1008839.

Procter, Rob, Farida Vis, and Alex Voss. “Reading the Riots on Twitter: Methodological Innovation for the Analysis of Big Data.” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16, no. 3 (2013): 197–214.

Reuters Institute Digital News Report. 2015. Oxford, England: Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism, Oxford University. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Reuters%20Institute%20Digital%20News%20Report%202015_Full%20Report.pdf

Rogers, Richard. Digital Methods. MIT press, 2013.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 3 #Follow The Medium : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Zeenab Aneez is an independent journalist and researcher in the field of digital media and culture. Her interests include digital publishing practices, new media journalism, media ecologies, digital labour and social media alternatives. She was previously a reporter at The Hindu, Hyderabad.

Neha Mujumdar is an independent editorial consultant based in Bangalore. Her writing has appeared in The Hindu and Time Out.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#FollowTheMedium was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

We propose to design the panel as a workshop with three paper presentations followed by an open discussion with the house exploring the key question of media objects‟ (in the form of film/film music/memes/gifs/trolls) changing relations with law; copyright and piracy having attained newer connotations in the age of media convergence. While we deal with the materiality of cinema in the new media moment, the session will open out debates on the mutability of media objects in a networked digital terrain ushered in by fast growing and cost-effective internet culture in urban India.

In terms of methodology the panel deploys media archaeology to trace the mutations that film culture has undergone in the digital age. The coexistence of the obsolete media copyright with its meme and its digitally re-mastered copy on torrent informs the research that the three papers involve. A certain engagement with the logic of informed/fan-cinephilic digital labour that unwittingly maintains and updates the algorithmic database of Web 2.0 services will run through the presentations. Along with archival research and interviews with professionals involved with online media companies and “users” who are now the “pirate/prosumer-cinephiles” of media objects, we will carry out extensive digital ethnography to map the chimera of digital territory that user traffic based internet culture in India helped produce.

The digital is a space of intervention: a space for the users to intervene and play with the material online. It is a constant form of participation underscoring a potential for democratic authorship. The definitive notion of authorship voices the overarching body of the state through its legal status. Thus copyright as a legal entity produces a discourse of power through this form of authorship. The contemporary medium or rather the multi-media constellation driven by internet culture in India produces an alternative discourse on authorship, complicating the notion of copyright and piracy at the same time. This charged terrain of (il)legality is also due to the nature of piracy in the digital domain, which does not exist in isolation but have now created bodies or spheres where it has been appropriated as a sub-cultural practice. The figure of the “pirate”/ the “troll”/ the “fan” and the “cinephile” now merges with the technologically enabled body of the user of new media who negotiates with the medium in multiple ways (and morphs it) and thereby touches all kinds of spaces within and outside the webspace. It has changed the physical scope of cinephilia as addressed in the paper “A Laptop and a Pen-drive: Cinephiles of Mukherjee Nagar,” where the culture of networked sharing evolves from and further complicates physical stations. It has permeated into the body of film music in the paper “Licensed, Remixed and Pirated: Item numbers and the web”, which interrogates the layers of user-based morphs that the text of a dance number in Bollywood undergoes in the culture of web based remixing and hacking. It changes the way protected materials like films circulate in the space designated as YouTube, marked by its ability to reproduce copyright materials without violating the law as the third paper titled “Online Streaming in the Era of Digital Cinephilia” points out; the logic of the obsolete license of old Hindi films which gains a new viral life on YouTube with its official upload vying with the multiple hacker-user uploads.

Thus the panel intends to explore the dizzying overlaps that produce this internet induced distinct zone of ambiguity that neither the law nor the state or the author can claim ownership over. The very embodiment of the material in the digital is in transition i.e. in a state of being morphedby the blurring of the identities of the multiple bodies at work at each moment. Through the three papers we intend to chart this transitional aesthetic sometimes contained and sometimes flowing out of the body of the media text onto the physical, technological and extra textual objects as well. The panel seeks to position this new world of media objects that overlap and form an uncontainable entity, seeking newer forms of negotiations with the older existing order. We seek to explore then what happens to the very essence of author(ity)ship when digital enters its domain.

Plan

A Laptop and a Pen-drive: Cinephiles of Mukherjee Nagar

With the changes technology has brought to contemporary life, cinephiles — for whom movies are a way of life, films and how they are experienced have undergone major changes. The classic cinephile, as the term was adopted in the 1960s has undergone a major change in the era of internet piracy. I will look at the way pirated films via torrent downloads are consumed by students in certain pockets in New Delhi especially around Mukherjee Nagar area. These students who come from the upwardly mobile Indian middle class families are engaged inpreparations of competitive exams to land a lucrative government job. Circumstances dictate that these students own a laptop to watch films but not a high speed internet connection. To fuel their cinephilic urge, they are dependent upon soft copy vendors of pirated films. These vendors are like a video library, the repository here being a laptop and a storage drive. These professional film pirates depend upon the p2p file sharing commonly referred as “torrent.” DVD and Blu Rays released by official sources are ripped at a bigger size by certain uploaderswhich are downloaded by another one who rips it to an even smaller size, fit enough to be downloaded by pirates with a slower broadband till it reaches places like Mukherjee Nagar. Using this particular case study, where the world of online film piracy merges with a third world piracy domain, I plan to interrogate the logistics of a new kind of cinephilia and try and frame this particular form of informal circuit of media production and consumption into a coherent perspective.

Relevant websites: https://kat.cr, https://yts.la/, https://torrentfreak.com.

Relevant software: Handbrake, uTorrent / Deluge / Vuze.

Relevant reading: Treske, Andreas. The Inner Life of Video Spheres: Theory for the YouTube Generation. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam, 2013

Licensed, Remixed and Pirated: Item Numbers and the Web

The coming of new digital technologies has rendered the relationship of media objects’ with law extremely malleable and volatile. It urges us to rethink certain categories we have been working with, viz. piracy and copyright. The specific focus of the paper will be on item numbers’ relationship with changing technology and the law. The proprioceptive body being the central node of enquiry here: the law that affects the body that moves on screen and the body that is moved by the screen is made flexible in the digital age with Web 2.0’s unique design that spawns hackability and remixability. Through the registers of music licensing to YouTube, circulation of content offline as MP3 downloads in cheap mass storage devices, user generated morphed content related to item numbers (in the form of memes, GIFs, trolls, posters, tumblr blogs and listicles) spawned by amateur digital culture and remixing videos of film content the paper traces the gray zone between web based music piracy and its copyright rules. It will interrogate the moment when the entertainment industry has recognized the clear shift of its spectatorship from the older media to the more digital platforms and appropriates the contingency brought in by the algorithmic anxiety of Web 2.0 and its unique relationship with law and hence censorship regulations to innovate newer means of mass circulation and bypassing censorship.

Relevant content: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2O2dBonBok.

Relevant user-traffic-oriented platforms: http://www.memegenerator.com, http://www.trolldekho.com, http://www.imgur.com, https://www.tumblr.com/.

Relevant curated online media platforms: ScoopWhoop, Buzzfeed India, blog.erosnow.com.

Online Streaming in the era of Digital Cinephilia

Digital piracy has allowed for certain democratization of film distribution and consumption through a parallel economy of piracy. The lack of control over these channels of distribution produces a blatant threat to the copyright and intellectual property rights that are quintessential to the mainstream culture of commercial film distribution. This paper will focus on the intersection of these two dichotomous cultures through the experience of watching old films via online streaming. The resurfacing of old films hosted by big corporations like Shemaroo, Venus and Ultra who began as film rights and video rights owners at one point host their old video content in a user generated space called youtube. The video content is a very specific form here. It is an obsolete entity, defined by its ambiguity with copyright that is able to make a legal transgression in order to circulate.

The circulation of the feature films in a web space that is primarily known for its clip culture also provides an interesting paradigm for the copyright material. The big corporate copyright floats in a culture of pirated experiences where the legal domain becomes a dizzying site of contradictions. Through this paper I will draw parallels between the history of these companies and their work in the field of film circulation and to the creation of a new form of cinephilia and its complicated relationship to the law. I will use a variety of archival sources, legal documents and discourses on online streaming to contextualize my argument.

Relevant websites: https://www.youtube.com/user/ShemarooEnt, https://www.youtube.com/user/VenusMovies, https://www.youtube.com/user/UltraMovieParlour

Readings

None.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 1 #Digital Desires : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Silpa Mukherjee is a Delhi based research scholar. She is currently enrolled in an MPhil programme in Cinema Studies at the School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University. She is a recipient of the social media research fellowship awarded by Sarai, CSDS. Her research interests include media archaeology with a focus on the body’s warped interconnections with changing media technology, studies of the medium, its resolution, aesthetics and erotics and a keen engagement with the practices of the Bombay Hindi film industry.

Ankita Deb is an M.Phil candidate at the Dept of Cinema Studies, School of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India. Her dissertation is on 1970s and the Romantic Couple in Bombay Cinema. Her other research interests are in melodrama, romance, media archaeology, Iranian cinema, early cinema and Bombay Cinema.

Rahul Kumar is an M.Phil. candidate at the Department of Cinema Studies, School of Arts and Aesthetics, JNU. His dissertation deals with film journalism during the 1970s in Bombay cinema. A post-graduate from CHS JNU, he’s an active media pirate. His other research interests include film piracy, classical Hollywood cinema, cinephilia, film history and film genre.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#DigitalDesires was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

The session intends to initiate a discussion on digital literacies in the wake of ‘Digital India’ programme drawing on the empirical insights from three different field situations. The discussion will be anchored in the social and material context of Digital India but will not be limited to it. The questions we raise in this specific context may be extended to understand the current conceptual as well as practical deployment of many ICT4D programmes as envisioned by both government and non-government actors. The idea of digital literacy is central to both the conceptualization and the execution of such programmes, and the actors in charge work with their own understanding of the context and needs of the people they aim to empower. There have been very few attempts to systematically understand the concept of digital literacy which leave much scope for either lenient contextual interpretations or context insensitive one-size-fits-all approach towards technological interventions. This session is an effort to begin one such discussion which we hope will refine the prevalent understanding of digital literacy/literacies in India.

From a glance at the structure of Digital India programme, it is apparent that the programme is designed to achieve digital inclusion and is primarily directed towards the digitally marginalized in spite of having a more comprehensive agenda. The schemes such as National Digital Literacy Mission (NDLM) and the way they are conceived are indexical of the kind of target groups which the programme plans to address. A key concern for us is to think through the mismatches between the frameworks of the digital literacy initiatives and the local socio-technical contexts which we observed in our field sites. The objective of the session is not as much to arrive at the definitional fixity of the concept of digital literacy as it is to complicate and problematize the prevalent definitions of digital literacy implicit in both visualization and execution of such initiatives. We plan to meet this objective through empirical insights we have on three different field sites.

The session will also focus on certain methodological questions that might help us better understand digital literacy. This part of the session addresses questions such as: how can we conceptually define digital literacy/literacies? What parameters should go into the measuring of digital literacy? How should we theoretically understand it — as technical skills or knowledge or some higher cognitive ability? How can we best pedagogically achieve it given the complexity of ground reality? The questions will be directed towards encouraging thought in this area rather than providing answers. The session will also try and discuss various kinds of policy and pedagogical documentation available on digital literacy and critically debate their conceptualization and execution by juxtaposing them against various uses of ICTs on the ground by specific groups of users. This part of the discussion will draw upon scholarly and other kinds of documentation available on the topic and use them to evaluate various government and corporate initiatives to achieve digital literacy in India.

Plan

In keeping with the spirit of the conference, the three discussants’ will try to put forth empirical insights from their respective field situations and frame nuanced research and discussion questions on digital literacies at the margins of techno-cultural capital and/or access. Further the discussion will be aided by specific readings and the insights drawn from them. The idea is to have a symmetrical, reciprocatory and anthropologically comparative conversation on questions of technology, materiality, access, meaning making, development and literacy, by moving back and forth between different fieldsites and interpretive frameworks.

Field Note I

The first discussant’s work on social media use in rural Rajasthan discusses socio-technical changes instituted by the introduction of ICTs despite their developmental failures. He claims that these changes have been often viewed from technologically or socially deterministic positions and that there are significant empirical gaps between such technocratic discourses and the grassroots experiences of technology. There is a growing usage of social and digital media in rural areas where ICT4D and e-Governance pilot projects have failed to meet their goals. Based on an ethnographic study of ICTs in two villages of Rajasthan, his work aims to situate social and digital media in a complex rural society and media ecology using co-constructivist approach. Focusing on context sensitive meaning making of ICTs, it will seek to contribute to an empirically sound discourse on media, technology and rural society in India.

Field Note II

The second discussant’s work on mobile phones and multimedia consumption among the digitally marginalized users in Bangalore brings into focus the popular usage of ICTs, specifically mobile phones, among the subaltern users. While such popular usage indicates a certain level of literacy already achieved by the digitally marginal groups by mere exposure and peer learning, it is not sufficient to do away with all kinds of guided training required to make such users participate in informationalized environments. Her observations on the mobile phone usage among the subaltern users in Bangalore problematize the notion of digital literacy and invite us to think about it as a more layered and stratified concept. They raise questions such as ‘what constitutes digital literacy?’ — some complex use of gadgets learnt by mere exposure and peer knowledge or an awareness about the social relevance of the technologies and knowledge about their appropriate deployment in different social contexts? While mere access and some nominal training might be helpful in equipping people with some knowledge about gadget-use, her study points out that such initiatives are far from achieving the right degree of digital literacy needed to make these people participate in new media ecologies. Thus it contends the claims of 1. Organic literacy attained by mere exposure and peer sharing of technological knowledge and 2. Literacy attained by current training programmes which might equip the digitally marginalized with knowledge of technological use but not necessarily inform them about the context relevant knowledge needed for their appropriate deployment.

Field Note III

The third discussant’s work on e-governance initiatives in an Indian state plans to return the gaze on to the bureaucracy itself and takes the conversation from the margins back to the centre. His work moves away from the target groups generally alluded to in programs such as the NDLM. It takes into accounts the struggles, anxieties, hopes and promises of/for a bureaucracy in coming to terms with a gradual but seemingly eventual shift from paper work to digital paper work. The users in this case are staff members tasked by the higher-level bureaucracy-who have little or no clue about it themselves- to learn a new tool and migrate all paper work to the digital domain. Many of e-governance projects are spearheaded by corporate organizations, which in turn dictate the terms of the conversation on Digital Literacy even within the government. What impact does this have on how Digital Literacy is understood, articulated and executed in ICT4D programs within and without the government.

Readings

Terranova, Tiziana. 2004. Chapter 5: Communication Biopower, 131–157. Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press.

Mazzarella, William. 2010. Beautiful Balloon: the Digital Divide and the Charisma of New Media in India. American Ethnologist, 37(4), 783–804.

Smith, Richard Saumarez. 1985. Rule-by-Records and Rule-by-Reports: Complementary Aspects of the British Imperial Rule of Law. Contributions to Indian Sociology 19(1): 153–176.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 2 #Digital Literacies at Margins : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Aakash Solanki is a PhD candidate in Anthropology and South Asian studies at the University of Toronto. He is broadly interested in the genealogical study of states, statistics (stats), and computing. In the past, he has worked on the collection, classification, management of information and its politics in colonial India. In addition to prior training in computer science, he has worked in government agencies both in the US and India, on data science projects in education , health, and skill development at the city, state, as well as the federal level. He has previously published in the journal South Asia and is a Contributing Editor to the journal Cultural Anthropology. He runs an interdisciplinary seminar series on Development at University of Toronto.

Sandeep Mertia is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication, and Urban Doctoral Fellow at New York University.

Rashmi M is a doctoral student in the school of social sciences at National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore. Her research interest is in the area of media studies. Her M.Phil work at English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad was on Kannada websites, in which she looked at the cultural politics of regional vernacular languages especially Kannada in the English dominated world of the Internet. Her doctoral work at NIAS focuses on changing media consumption practices via mobile phones and other peripheral technologies among users with limited technological access and economic means in the city of Bangalore and surrounding areas.

#DigitalLiteraciesAtTheMargins was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

Since its early days the Internet has been conceived in terms of both movement and landscape — from “cyberspace” to the “Information Superhighway” — and in popular perception is often viewed as a boundless space imagined in terms of limitless possibilities. Indeed, across our research fields, from digital media to performance and social activism, we find that the Internet is frequently perceived as a space of mobilisation: where moving bodies are remediated within online content; where the movement of images, ideas and bodies can occur freely, with the rapid transmission of the “viral”; and where movement(s) frequently spill over into physical geographies.

Yet increasingly the Internet is also a space of fractured and fragmented movement(s): of blockages and blockades, discontinuities and disappearances. Landscapes become territorialized and movement(s) confined or obstructed. On this basis, we propose an interdisciplinary discussion session around the theme of “#InternetMovement(s)”. We ask how we can conceive of movement(s) in relation to the Internet in India, in terms of both mobility and immobility, fissure and flow.

To encourage fluidity, we propose to structure the session around three “nodes” rather than three separate research papers. Our nodes are as follows:

1. How can we conceive of movement(s) in relation to Internet research in India?
2. What are the forms that movement(s) take in our respective fields?
3. What “stop” or blocks” movement in these cases?

The three co-conveners will each prepare a 5-minute response to each of these nodes, based on our specific areas of research. At each nodal point we will then allow time for wider discussion, enabling inter-disciplinary discussion and flow to underpin the session.

We perceive the session to speak to the first of the conference’s core questions: “How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?”

Each of the three co-convenors is approaching this question in their own research, asking how online media and communications mediate, remediate and transform the fields of film-media, social activism, and performance. We also ask the corollary: what are the limits and impediments to those transformations or mediations? The following section outlines the co-convenors’ approaches in more detail.

Plan

Statement of Intent I

The internet increasingly impresses traces on nearly all media technologies everyday. The once stable film body, gets disaggregated into various new forms of loop videos, GIFS, photo-memes, as clips and stills from disparate films get extracted, re-edited, patched and re-moulded into new user-generated media material. Solitary moments and gestures from films (a menacing wink by Jack Nicholson from The Shining, a clap from Charles Kane, a tear from the Tin-Man in The Wizard of Oz) get completely unchained from the original narrative context and used as discrete independent communicative units (Kane’s a popular Birthday wish gesture, while Nicholson’s Is a common linguistic unit signifying playful flirtation.) One of the primary ontological pegs of cinema — movement, today becomes the center of urgent debate around the status of photographs, movement-image forms like GIFs, and traditional moving images as the basic configuring elements of contemporary cinema. Using the film-GIF form as its primary vector this paper opens up the category of ‘movement’ philosophically as well as a constituent form to understand cinema today within the context of India.

As the cinematic object disperses into thousands of fragments hurtling through innumerable new online contexts, questions related to stardom also get radically transformed. I will be investigating a particular site of cinematic re-instansiation — the recent Alok Nath meme phenomenon. Long relegated to the margins of films as the venerable Hindu middle class father, the ‘’Alok Nath is so sanskaari..’’ set off a viral maelstrom that suddenly recast his cinematic body and the memory of a whole host of films (the Suraj Barjatya Hindu joint-family films). The paper focus on questions around movement as a philosophical arena as well as radical new form re-inscribing the cinematic in hitherto unprecedented shapes today.

Statement of Intent II

An examination of social movements with digital components in India begs several questions: What forms do social movements take in the digital world? How do we conceptualise social movements using digital and physical evidence? How does the context of India — as a functioning democracy — allow or restrict digital and physical social movements and define what is an “acceptable” protest movement? Engaging with these questions demands an interdisciplinary perspective, and exploring the interplays between the physical and the digital in regard to social issue protest movements.

Movement in my particular research area is understood in two aspects: the physical mobilisation of individuals to protest against perceived grievances and the movement of information around specific issue areas. The physical movement of bodies in public places is intimately connected to flow of information throughout digital networks, generating entangled and complex interfaces between the digital and the physical and creating new imagined possibilities of the efficacy of social protest (Castells 2012; Gerbaudo 2012). Examining recent social movements in New Delhi allows us to explore the linkages and disjuncture between the physical and digital, using theoretical developments in social movement theory to anchor the study (Earl, Hunt, and Garrett 2014; Krinsky and Crossley 2014).

Examining the repercussions and strategies of physical/digital mobilisation can lead to a confrontation between the “imagined” possibilities of digital mobilisation and the realities of technological and physical blockages. These blockages can exist at the level of the network — both in digital and physical limitations — but also at the level of digital informational flow and who is allowed to view data? Confronting the “imagined” capabilities with the reality of entrenched power networks contests the notion of the digital as a free superhighway of information into a series of blocks and stoppages, restricting what is possible and feasible. By exploring question of movement(s) in New Delhi, I will explore the disjuncture between the imagined possibilities and the restriction of information — by nature of the algorithms that govern our capabilities and our own social networks — and complicate the triumphal narrative of the affordances of digital mediums on protest movements.

References

Castells, M. (2012) Networks of Outrage and Networks of Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Cambridge, MA: Polity Press

Earl, J., Hunt, J., and Kelly Garrett, R. (2014) ‘Social Movements and the ICT Revolution’ in van der Heijden (Ed.) Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Pgs. 359–383

Gerbaudo, P. (2012) Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism, London: Pluto Press

Krinsky, J. and Crossley, N. (2014) ‘Social Movements and Social Networks: An Introduction’, Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest, Vol. 13, №1. Pgs. 1–21

Statement of Intent III

My research centres on the recent history of flash mob performance in India and analyses the transformations that have taken place within the genre: firstly, as an initially American, then “global,” performance form becomes re-situated and adapted within an Indian context; and secondly, as the form has evolved over time in relation to the transitioning of the Internet from a predominantly text-based medium to a predominantly image- and video-based one (see Strangelove 2010).

In the field of flash mob performance, we see moving bodies becoming re-mediated as moving images, and mobilised into the flow of global circuits of online reception. My underlying concern when approaching this research is: who is mobile in these contexts? Who becomes visible through movement, and by extension, who may disappear in these same moments?

I intend to approach this session by examining what is enacted through the movements of flash mob performance, focusing on the more recent phase of the genre in which flash mobs become mobilised through online video-sharing practices. I argue that they perform mediated representations of “New India” for an online national and international audience, valorising the new “non-places” (Augé 1992) of Indian supermodernity, through the acts of a mobilised “digerati” (Keniston 2004). If we consider that performance can play a role in the construction of cultural memory (Roach 1996; Taylor 2003), and that the Internet as an archive can become a repository of performances and thus memories(Gehl 2009), I ask if online performance in these contexts may be seen as an aspect of the processes that structure a “politics of forgetting” (Fernandes 2006) in globalising India. Which narratives are rendered visible and which invisible through these performances? Who appears and who disappears? Movement on the Internet thus becomes a political question concerned with comparative mobilities, visibilities, and participation in the narratives of “India” that are constructed for global circulation.

References

Augé, M., 1992. Non-places : introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. Translated by J. Howe. 1995. London & New York: Verso.

Fernandes, L., 2006. The politics of forgetting: class politics, state power and the restructuring of urban space in India. In Y. Lee and B.S.A. Yeoh eds., Globalisation and the Politics of Forgetting, London; New York: Routledge.

Gehl, R., 2009. YouTube as archive: Who will curate this digital Wunderkammer? International Journal of Cultural Studies, 12(1), pp.43–60.

Keniston, K., 2004. Introduction: The four digital divides. In K. Keniston & D. Kumar eds., IT experience in India: bridging the digital divide, New Delhi; Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Roach, J.R., 1996. Cities of the Dead: Circum-atlantic performance. Chichester and New York: Columbia University Press.

Strangelove, M., 2010. Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Taylor, D., 2003. The archive and the repertoire: Performing cultural memory in the Americas. USA: Duke University Press.

Readings

Noys, B. (2004) Gestural Cinema?: Giorgio Agamben on Film. In Film Philosophy Vol. 8 no. 22. Available at: http://www.film-philosophy.com/vol8-2004/n22noys.

Couldry, N. (2015) ‘The Myth of ‘Us’: Digital Networks, Political Change and the Production of Collectivity’, Information Communication and Society, Vol. 18, №6. Pgs. 608–626 .

Appadurai, A., (2010) How histories make geographies: circulation and context in a global perspective. Transcultural Studies, 1. Availabile at: http://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/index.php/transcultural/article/view/6129.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 1 #Internet Movements : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Dr. Rebecca Savory Fuller is a Lecturer in Theatre & Performance at the Arts University Bournemouth (UK). She is a performance maker and researcher with a background in movement, interactive and site-based performance. Her doctoral research examined the flash mob performance genre in India, as it evolved urban contexts between 2003 to 2015. The project was funded by UKEIRI as part of an interdisciplinary, split-site doctoral programme between the University of Exeter and the National School of Advanced Studies (NIAS) in Bangalore.

Sarah McKeever is currently a PhD Candidate in Contemporary India Research at the India Institute, King’s College London. She previously completed a Masters of Science on Contemporary India at the University of Oxford and a Bachelors of Arts at the University of Chicago. Ms. McKeever was a Fulbright-Nehru English Teaching Assistant in New Delhi from 2010–2011.

Shaunak Sen is a film maker and researcher based in Delhi.His first feature
length documentary film is *Cities of Sleep* which premiered at MAMI in November 2015. He has published widely in journals including Bioscope and Widescreen. He received the Sarai Digital Media Fellowship in 2014, and the Films Division grant in 2013, the Luminato Festival Copycat residency at Toronto in 2015 as well as the Pro Helvetia residency in Switzerland for 2016.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#InternetMovements was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Sessions

The Internet today, as we know, is one of the most challenging socio-technical systems to understand and theorise. As a hybrid medium that perpetually, reinvents, redesigns and re-markets itself and its publics it defies all forms of historical, social, legal and technological determinisms and/or generalisations. The complex nature of the medium and the social and cultural lives of the information packets which flow through it can perhaps be better understood by heeding critical attention towards longer histories of media circulation, technology-society relationships and legal regulations.

The panel attempts to understand the way digital technologies (the Internet/the current digital moment) mediate aspects of our contemporary being through the history of media circulation, legal regulation and data infrastructure. The papers in the panel focus on three crucial periods — the 1940s early history of statistical mediation, the 1980s video moment and the early 2000s advent of legal regulation of the Internet. Each of these moments is marked by socio-technical, cultural and legal disruption as seen through both moral anxieties and utopian claims that circulate at the time. The panel attempts to understand media technologies through their technological affordances (unpacking current debates around data analytics through a history of statistical mediation) and the social and legal disruptions that follow their advent (video in the 80s and the Internet in late 90s).

The papers in the panel approach the Internet and networked digital media as an assemblage of media infrastructures, bringing together both conceptual and material layers of their experience. The papers in this panel use a media archaeology approach (Elsaesser, 2004) to engage with the longer history of electronic communication in India by looking at both its material nature (how law produces the representation of digital media and the Internet), and the history of non narrative framework of databases (the Internet as a massive data infrastructure) which have become increasingly diverse and distributed through a network of institutions, practices and technological platforms.

Plan

Abstract I: ‘What is Video?’ Video and the Moment of Legal Disruption

The advent of YouTube changed the way users interact with media content as now they are making videos, watching videos, editing them, sharing them and discussing them at a frantic speed, creating new communities as they go along (Manovich, 2008).

The YouTube phenomenon and its implications cannot be understood without contextualizing it within the broader history of video. In India, the Asiad Games heralded the arrival of analog video technology, although there was no legal producer of video content in the country. In a sense video was an illegal object that spawned a vibrant economy of video films, video magazines and pornography.

Video cassettes were primarily in the pirate economy and circulated all across the country through video libraries and parlours. New Bollywood and Hollywood releases as well as pornographic films were available on video cassettes which initially did not have any film certification regulation. The new mode of circulation made these video exhibition spaces a lynchpin of moral paranoia and economic anxiety for those in authority-video was like a plague that needed to be monitored and regulated. This led to a string of legal regulations to keep the ‘video menace’ in check. Associations, organizations and forums protested the new wave of regulations as it pitched the medium of video against that of cinema, demanding new medium specific laws instead of amendments to previous laws on cinema.

In this paper, I will examine how the wave of regulations and contesting bodies creates a charged force field of the period that gives one a sense of a social, cultural and legal disruption caused by the arrival of a new technology. Particularly, I want to focus on how video as an illegal object circulates through informal circuits at a rapid pace and how the law deals with this new technological development. By looking at the example of video, it would be productive to think about the resonances the extended genealogies of how the law is interacting with the current digital moment through the prism of analog video.

Abstract II: Big Data 2.0 — A History of Statistical Remediation

One of the fast emerging themes in the understanding of the Internet is centred on its various technological affordances to generate, collect, measure, analyse, mine andvisualise data. With the recent (circa 2010) advent of the hype cycles of Big Data and data revolution, the socio-technical imaginaries which reveal the Internet as a massive data infrastructure have been gaining momentum. ‘Data’ which in many ways is an ontological byproduct of the Internet, is now increasingly becoming the object of thought and computation for understanding and analysing the Internet. This moment of flux invites us to reflect upon the genealogies of the concepts, techniques and practices which are consciously or otherwise informing the incredible epistemic investment in data-driven systems. With an aim to unpack some of the long histories of the contemporary data analytics movement and moment, this paper tries to trace some of the inflection points in the genealogies of analytics and statistical remediation in colonial and post-colonial India, with an emphasis on the works of P C Mahalanobis and the statistical framing of planning and governance in the pre- and post-independence era.

The author will utilise ethnographic and archival material from his on-going fieldwork on emerging data-driven systems in the social sector in India, to reflect upon the shifts in materiality of data, classificatory affordances of paper and software based systems, and their epistemic implications across two different epochs. In addition, as a methodological reflection, the paper will argue that — developing lateral, conceptual connections between pre-digital circulations and meaning making of numbers and their contemporary algorithmic ecologies, is crucial for moving beyond causalities and the Big Data hubris, towards a thicker anthropology of data-driven knowledge production across times, infrastructures and networks.

Abstract III: The History of Internet Law in India

The relationship between law and media technology in India has been broadly characterized as the law catching up with technological change. To unpack this statement, one needs to take into account how the law both shapes and is shaped by media technologies. As the law ‘catches up’ with new technology, it also characterizes this technology, brackets it, and helps reinforce popular perception of technology. This paper will examine the early history of Internet law in India, the debates that arose in the pre web 2.0 era, and the ways in which a wide variety of factors, over a period of 15 years, has gradually shaped the scope and extent of the law that governs the Internet, the Information Technology Act (IT), 2000.

The IT Act, being relatively recent legislation is an ideal illustration to study the manner in which government policy, public perception, judicial pronouncements, parliamentary committee proceedings, legislative debates, and rapidly changing technology have influenced the shaping of this specific media infrastructure. By examining these documents I would like to open up a series questions around law and media technology How is the relationship between law and media technology staged through public discourse? What are the ways in which both the extremes — utopian hope and moral panic play out, and how are these then related to the more functional aspects of technology? Who were the major actors, individuals and institutions, who drove Internet law and regulation at this time?

By addressing these questions, this paper seeks to examine a small slice of the longer history of electronic communication in India.

Readings

Lovink, Geert and Nadiere, Sabine ed. Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube, Amsterdam, Institute of Network Cultures, 2008.

Lisa Gitelman and Virginia Jackson, Introduction, Raw Data is an Oxymoron. Edited by Lisa Gitelman. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press, 2013.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Full text of judgement available at http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf.

Audio Recording of the Session

IRC 2016: Day 1 #Web of Genealogies : Researchers at Work (RAW) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Session Team

Ishita Tiwary is a Horizon Post Doctoral Fellow at the Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema, Concordia University, Montreal.

Sandeep Mertia is a PhD Candidate at the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication, and Urban Doctoral Fellow at New York University.

Siddharth Narrain is a PhD candidate and Scientia scholar at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#WebOfGenealogies was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Session

The discussion in this session will focus on the cultures of practices around digital / information networks. The objective would be to open up the understanding around notions of identity and rights in the context of governance on one hand, and the proliferation of various subcultures on the other. The objective is to try and understand the political and cultural imaginations ‘of and as the public’ enabled by internet and digital technologies. In this, we are trying to connect the whole discussion to the first two questions the conference focuses on:

How do we conceptualise, as an intellectual and political task, the mediation and transformation of social, cultural, political, and economic processes, forces, and sites through internet and digital media technologies in contemporary India?

How do we frame and explore the experiences and usages of internet and digital media technologies in India within its specific historical-material contexts shaped by traditional hierarchies of knowledge, colonial systems of communication, post-independence initiatives in nation-wide technologies of governance, a rapidly growing telecommunication market, and informal circuits of media production and consumption, among others?

Plan

Each discussant will present for 20 minutes after which the session will be thrown open for discussion amongst all the participants of the session.

Abstract I

Internet in India has led to the proliferation of practices and notions of governance and citizenship simulated by information networks and data. On one hand, the internet has captured the imagination of citizens and the reassertion of user agency; on the other, the experiences with the internet reflects the new ways of how the state imagines itself and the citizens. Hence, not only a critical mass replete with the possibilities of user agency, but also one aggregated by the state as part of a political project. Initiatives such as Digital India, the Aadhar project, rural internet and increased emphasis on mobile internet services are some of ways through which the logic of access and participation now operates. The paper will draw perspectives from four case studies in Assam — the Mahanagar Project (internet and mobile services), the National Register of Citizens (NRC) update, the Aadhaar Project and rural internet kiosks (Common Service Centers). With these, it focuses on the larger context of the cultures of digital practices; and techno-politics through the various sites and projects through which the internet operates in India.

Abstract II

Those of us who have jumped or meandered across to the wrong (or perhaps the right) side of thirty by now, first came to consume internet in what were called, and are still called, cyber cafes or internet cafes. Their numbers in big Indian cities is dwindling because of the increasing ubiquity of smartphone, and netbooks and data cards. The cyber café seems to be inexorably headed the way of the STD booth in the geography of large Indian cities. The present paper is a preliminary step towards capturing some of the experience of running and using internet cafes. With ethnographic fieldwork with cyber café owners and internet users in these cafes in the Chandrasekharpur area of Bhubaneswar (where the largest section of the computer industry in the state of Odisha is located), this paper tries to capture experiences that lie at the interstices of ‘objects’ and spaces — experiences that are at the same time a history of the internet as well as a personal history of the city. By doing so it tries to ask and answer the question — what kinds of publics does the consumption of the internet in spaces such as cybercafes create?

Readings

Escobar, Arturo, et al. 1994. Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture [and Comments and Reply]. Current Anthropology. 35(3): 211–231.

Nayar, Pramod K. 2008. New Media, Digitextuality and Public Space: Reading “Cybermohalla”. Postcolonial Text. 4(1):1–12.

Kurian, Renee and Isha Ray. 2009. Outsourcing the State? Public–Private Partnerships and Information Technologies in India. World Development. 37(10): 1163–1173.

Audio Recording of the Session

https://archive.org/details/Day1.ManyPublicsofInternet

Session Team

Sailen Routray is a researcher, writer, editor and translator who lives and works in Bhubaneswar.

Khetrimayum Monish Singh works on data governance and is interested in questions around data-driven community experiences and practices, specifically with regard to access, security, and identity. He has submitted his doctoral thesis at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Note: This session was part of the first Internet Researchers’ Conference 2016 (IRC16) , organised in collaboration with the Centre for Political Studies (CPS), at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on February 26–28, 2016. The event was supported by the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund (CDIF).

#ManyPublicsOfInternet was originally published in r@w blog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.