[-empyre-] empyre Digest, Vol 68, Issue 10 / is there a will to create / the social beyond the mechanisim?

[Eugenio Tisselli]

Hi all,

Kriss, I'm still here. I'm very interested in the ways in which the discussion is unfolding, and would like to add some comments:

Kriss said:

> When we talk about networked communities and their limits
> some of these limits (I assume are not human), does that
> give them agency in the same way.  That is, how can we
> claim to isolate creativity, or community for that matter by
> placing exclusions / anxieties, etc.  When we talk
> about inclusion or anxiety, what is the issue, are these
> always possibilities? Are they always the premise? Most of
> the theories of community (recent ones, do attempt to think
> beyond exclusions, starting with Agamben's Coming Community,
> and various others on the Italian left). Yet these theories
> are also moving away from state-based (ethnic and
> nationalist) understandings of community as temporary ?
> problem oriented rather than identity oriented.

I am not aware of Agamben's theories, but I would like to point towards Anthony P Cohen's book, "Symbolic construction of community"(1985), in which he explores the idea of how communities define their boundaries in an emergent way, by the constant symbolic exchanges going on within them. Assuming an essential separation between symbol and meaning, Cohen argues that a community subsists by sharing symbols, which may have different meanings for each of its members, but that nevertheless hold the capacity to create bonds. He focuses on rituals which, through the effects of repetition go through an erosion of meaning: they become purely symbolic. Yet, even if thes rituals are bascically senseless (I am thinking about a number of religious festivities in different parts of Spain: while their original meanings are practically forgotten, they are still celebrated), they provide a context in which people re-create their existence as a community (breaking thus
 the ultra-individualistic mode of daily life)
So, it's not just exclusion or anxiety: it is also getting together from time to time and remembering what is it that we have in common with others around us. This I would call "community intimacy": the moments and places in which communities realize (in the sense of "making real") the act of sharing things which are deeply rooted in their souls... as opposed to daily life, where people normally keep to themselves. As Cohen reminds us, communities are both practical and ideological: they are made up of very real people, things and exchanges, and at the same time they exist as ideals.

James said:

> Perhaps then we should be looking to examine not what is made possible 
> by digital networks ('new creativity'), but at their limits? The way 
> they partake of and re-present the principles that have constituted the > place of 'creativity' and 'art'?

The experience I have had with my work so far has been mostly with "hybrid" communities: groups of people who get together face to face, but also in virtual environments. I believe that the limits of digital networks are compensated by physical gatherings, and vice-versa. Of course, it is not always possible to bring about this sort of experience, but I believe it propitiates an environment in which people can potentially get the best of both worlds. There are elements in each which can encourage creativity: in gatherings, people get to socialize and thus build relations of trust. They find common interests and goals, and start to imagine together. In a digital network, people find tools to empower communication: folksonomies, maps, multimedia communication, etc. So, to wrap this up, I would say that gatherings provide a "heart" and "spirit" for the group, and that digital networks provide tools for efficacy. When combined, these elements can result in
 powerful creative endeavors.

Best,
Eugenio.