Fahrenheit 464

In some ways these next sections of Ulmer's Internet Invention were pleasing, and in otherwise troublesome.  I was pleased to see Ulmer more explicitly lay out his line of thought from mystory to electracy (e.g., 42).  This work is more deliberately unfolded for the reader than say Electronic Monuments.  Let me begin by replicating the key components in his line of thought, if not even more explicitly:

Subjectivity is key to understanding images/imaging (i.e., Barthes punctum)

Natural State hinders imag-ination

Subjectivity/Social Location is key to (de)consulting (i.e., a bottom-up/multi-voice/creative approach)

Electracy requires use/understanding of image

Electracy is key to consultation

MyStory is a key for understanding/interrogating subjectivity/social location

MyStory is a key for understanding image

MyStory is thus key to electracy and consultation

I now see what Ulmer is claiming.  Why, though, is electracy necessary for consultation?  Is it as simple as Blogger allowing self-publishing?  I hope not.  Is it because the MyStory route provides this Utopian mechanism of freeing our minds such that new and amazing solutions will be produced?  I have a hard time getting on board with that... especially given what I see as a problematically (and ironically) reductionist perspective at work in the MyStory (an "Aptitude Test" ??!  p27)...  

But let's grant that everything Ulmer argues for is true.  What, though, are we risking in the pursuit of electracy?  Are we even pursuing the right ends?  Are we seeking what they sought, or are we seeking what Ulmer tells us to seek?


Are we putting too much stock in electracy?  AND is electracy only linked to the digital apparatus?  What if the digital/electronic world were to come toppling down?  There are plenty of fictional narratives about a world in which the electronic apparatai dominate (the EPIC movie posted by Lauren is a rather captivating example of such ---- give it a chance and you'll get drawn into it), but there are also equally as many reasonably-plausible narratives of a world in which the digital/electronic/electrately-capable no longer reigns supreme (or even survives).  


Some might say that we simply must harness the potential power of electracy - form it in its infancy - arguing that the technological genie is out of the bottle so now is the time to determine is productive value.  It is all to convenient and naive to simply say "I don't think the internet is going anywhere anytime soon."  Really?  So scenarios of an accidental war that obliterates infrastructure, successful aggression from a hostile nation that represses technology, economic downturn that by necessity or choice draws individuals away from technology, a shortage in fuel resources that results in power rationing, or a serious of legal victories that hampers the Net aren't enough?  (Ted Trainer, for instance, argues that de-development is inevitable; it's just a question of whether we want to go about it the hard way or the catastrophic way)


As such, is electracy necessary for (de)consultation?  I kind of hope not.  And given that Ulmer is speaking of (de)consulting within "the context of specialized knowledge" (41) even in his efforts to decrease disciplinarity (24), are we not inevitably setting up the same top-down system of experts?  Well, of course these are super-creative experts given their newly found subjective/introspective enlightenment...


I do not mean to be unnecessarily combative.  In fact, I don't even think I am necessarily completely right in the direction this line of inquiry clearly seems to be taking.  Yet, I find these questions to be quite important to consider.  


There have been countless numbers of ideas formulated in non-electrate fashions that have made impacts on cultures.  Take, for instance, the Tchantches puppets of Belgium.  By performing (a concept that is important to Ulmer - p38) narratives that highlighted the fragmented nature of the culture, the middle-lower class (the bulk of just about everyone) banded together in ways that effected real change.  Unity through a declaration of dis-unity.  (Now, of course, the government tried to coopt these efforts with some success, but that's another story). 

* * *
I happen to have grown up outside of and gone to school in the "Plastic Thermoforming Capital of the World."  464 Degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which the PolyStyrene your computer is made out of will melt.  If that happens, before or after we learn/create/explore electracy, what does that mean for us?  It seems like an important question...