Research
I’m interested in the theory of social contracts, the global regulation of intellectual property and its implications in the digital age for cultural and creative practice (with a focus on photo media), the democratization of scholarly communication, and inclusive social knowledge practices.
Current Projects BelowWhose Property? The Work and Play of The Mind
Debates over property reveal some of the central antagonisms in modern political philosophy. In the broad landscape of modernity these tensions, and the social lives to which they have given meaning, have tended to coalesce around two general positions: one defined by private property and the other defined by collective ownership. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, advocates from one of these camps claimed that the question of the meaning of property, at least in its material manifestations, was now settled, and in their favor. Private property, they supposed, came out victorious. Positions advocating common or collective ownership of material property became increasingly viewed as outdated or outmoded, their conceptual language burdened by the collapse of the political regimes of communism, discredited as a variant of totalitarianism.
By the late 1990s this victory seemed hyperreal, exaggerated to the point where the world might be considered to have reached an “end of history.” The world, in this view, had become a completely interlinked marketplace of private property, with capitalism solidifying its position as the pre-eminent economic, social, and ideological system. Notions of collective ownership of property as the foundation of political, economic, or social life, all-but faded away as politically viable alternatives, are retreated into isolated islands of dictatorship. The centuries-long property debate had, it seemed, subsided from its place in the center of mainstream political discourse. However, through the 1990s we also experienced the intensification of the case for, or living realities of, another kind of epoch-defining shift, a shift toward a post-industrial information age. Interpretations of the distinctive character of this age were focused on a move toward knowledge work, research-based production, and the emerging social and productive practices associated with digital technologies and communication networks, now becoming the core engines for social, political, and economic development. Although holding a privileged starting position, private property is no longer taken to be the default property logic for mediating the production and ownership of the defining good of this new age, a form of labor that I term “the work and play of the mind”.
This project attempts to account for the origins of four alternatives to the production and ownership of the “work and play of the mind” in the post-industrial information age; and how each model attempts to grapple with this question of social becoming.
Information, Medium, Society: The Social Practice of Publishing
Why consider "publishing" in and of itself? Does the social practice of publishing require its own conceptual frame, or do existing models in disciplines such as Information and Library Sciences, Sociology of Culture, Literary Sociology, or Communication and Media Studies suffice? Is the study of publishing better suited to vocational training, where professional practices are subsequently siloed and normalized into sub-categories, genres, and dynamics of practice?
This research seeks to frame publishing as a process that begins with information, is shaped by mediums, and exists in a constant feedback loop with societies. The aim is twofold: first, to develop a conceptual framework—a social theory of publishing; second, to consider practical implications—how publishing shapes and is shaped by the development of professional communities within cultures and societies.
The goal is to provide a deeper understanding of the complexities and challenges within the publishing industry, encouraging more equitable and inclusive practices in the creation and dissemination of knowledge. This research focuses on several key themes. It assesses how publishing shapes and is shaped by cultural and social norms, values, and movements, including the role of publishing in promoting or challenging dominant ideologies and narratives. It examines the legal and ethical issues surrounding intellectual property rights, copyright laws, and their effects on creativity, authorship, and access to information. Additionally, it analyzes the role of digital technologies in transforming publishing practices, from digital printing to e-books and online platforms, and their implications for access, distribution, and readership.
The research also considers the differences in publishing practices and their impacts across various regions and cultures, highlighting both global trends and local specificities. Furthermore, it delves into the ethical considerations and sustainability issues within the publishing industry, such as environmental impacts, labor practices, and the responsibilities of publishers to their communities and stakeholders.
By addressing these themes, this research aims to uncover the ways in which publishing not only reflects but actively constructs the social worlds in which it operates. It aspires to cultivate a more nuanced understanding of publishing as a dynamic, socially embedded practice that is central to the production and circulation of knowledge in contemporary society.
The Image of Transformation: Properties of Consequence
There are some fundamental properties to images. The first is their empirical connection to the world – they tell us something about the world; they reflect and re-present it. How do they achieve this? What techniques and mediations do they employ? What kinds of 'truth' can images convey?
A second property of significance is the image's normative dimension. No image can solely reflect the world; it is also a perspective on the world, an orientation towards it. This is because every image is the incidental outcome of a design act, a product of human agency. The image-maker, driven by interest, selects from available resources for meaning (visual grammars, fabrication techniques, focal points of attention) and undertakes an act of design – the process of image-making. In doing so, they re-image the world in a novel way. The centrality of the human agent is undeniable.
Given that no two human experiences are identical, interests and perspectives in imaging are infinitely diverse. Material conditions (social class, locale, family), corporeal attributes (age, race, sex, sexual orientation, physical and mental abilities), and symbolic differences (culture, language, gender, affinity, and persona) often play paramount roles in shaping these perspectives, reflecting the imaging agent's focal purposes or implicit agendas.
For viewers, every image is perceived through the lens of their cultural and technical resources, viewed in a manner unique to their interests and perspectives. The act of viewing, therefore, transforms both the image and its world. From a normative standpoint, how do interest, intention, motivation, perspective, subjectivity, and identity intertwine in the realm of image-making? Moreover, what role does the viewer play in reframing and revisualizing the image?
The third property of consequence is that the image is transformational. Its potentials are utopian. We see (the empirical), we visualize (the normative), and we imagine (the utopian). There is a significant etymological connection between 'image' and 'imagination'. Images are not just reflections of the world but can be manifestations of will. They speak not just about the world but to the world, addressing hopes and aspirations. The world, once re-seen, becomes the world transformed. What resides in the imagination today can become the blueprint for practice and politics tomorrow. Imagination is the representation of possibility.