This conversation is the first of a series of what will be thematic treatments of the disjuncture between modernist thought and the posthuman movement. It took place between Chris Witmore and Timothy Webmoor in October of 2004.

O.K., a thousand ways, to enter into this polemic. Rather than wrangle with 'modernism' vs. 'post-modernism' vs. 'high-modernism' or 'a-modernism' as most characteristic of contemporary culture - and this would have to be appropriately contextualized in relation to Euro-american, non-western, or general globalized economic inter-connectedness settings - an alternative, practical observation may be made - one that is particularly salient given the very nature of this web-based forum. Blogging, or ~web-based interactive and dynamic 'journals', has taken on a paramount role in Euro-american society. Not that all (or even a minority) of individuals are engaging with blogs, but that blogging is no longer solely in the specialized high-tech minded realm of 'Wired Magazine' discussions. Now, even 'Time' magazine (latest issue) features the role of blogging as a phenomenon influencing the current presidential elections in the U.S. Bloggers and Blog-sites are a hotbed for political spin on election proceedings, pre-empting, for example, national and local media sources for post-debate spin and opinion. And, as even 'Time' discusses, bloggers' sites are influencing popular sentiment and election proceedings regarding the upcoming election by flooding results in Google searches on election news, raising non-partisan funds through the collaboration of bloggers and surfers, and providing instantenous, running commentary on election events. These blogs operate outside national/international corporate media, and perhaps may be becoming so popular due to the antidote they provide to 'homogenized' mainstream media outlets underwritten by corporate funding/ownership. Ironically, such tech-savy 'popular media' seem to be fulfilling a yearning for simplified, 'grass-roots' organization.

Why? What's going on here. And why do I think it has anything to do with archaeology and the social sciences? Firstly (and most apparently), we (following the early advocacy of Michael Shanks) are already utilizing blogging technology in archaeology - this Project Forum software is based upon the dynamic, open-editing, and continual accretion of dated entries characterizing blogging.

More importantly, though, I think blogging-technology and its uses ties-in directly to more abstract arguments over our current historical setting. Socio-politically, this dispersal of 'voice' (facilitated by technology) across the internet by-passes the consolidating process (or censorship) of accreditation, review and legitimation of more standard media outlets. Though this process may be contested as the necessary 'quality control' of news presentation, bloggers quickly avow that they do in fact practice an 'internal criticsm' amongst other bloggers and readers. While still somewhat prohibitive, a computer and a connection to the internet are all that is needed to post 'personal speech' in a public realm. If we follow certain social theorists (Lyotard, Jameson), such a pluralizing of voices indeed diagnoses 'post-modernity' and the increasing “…incredulity towards metanarratives” (Lyotard 1984:xxiv). Equally, however, though blog-based vocalization may indeed be described as fostering an 'ideal public sphere' wherein a more direct and radical democracy my be practiced through the universal and egalitarian inclusion of citizens, Habermas (1971, 1984) would decry the denotation of his speach community as 'Po-Mo'. Instead, the re-emphasis upon individual rights and governmental participation (whether fostered by technology or not) seems more reminiscent of Englightenment-derived ideals for the citizen-individual (Rousseau and the philosophes, but especially the Anglo-inheritors who highlighted the need to participates fully in governmental procedures, but always with the intent to progressivley diminish the constraining effects of rule upon indivual growth (J.S. Mill) and happiness (generally property rights; Locke, Adam Smith, Bentham and utilitarianism, etc.). And for these reasons, it could be asserted that blogging and a more public 'techno-sphere' simply represent modernist values in new clothing. Other commentators, grounding the discussion in economic relations, would also argue that contemporaneity, though indeed distinct in terms of cultural production (so that the novels of D.H. Lawrence or James Joyce, the architecture Le Corbusier or the aesthetics of Andre Breton, etc. may no longer resonate within a shared network of meanings), continues base economic values/assumptions of modernism - technological progress coupled with expanding markets and increase in productivity, etc.; and that we should not mischaracterize actual historical continuities (Harvey 1990) or ignore long economic precedents (Wallerstein 1974) in favour of the ‘trends’ of the academy which capitalize on ‘new movements’ or ‘paradigm shifts’ to launch careers in ‘underdeveloped regions’ (cf. Hacking 1999; Kuhn 1970).

What has changed (but perpetually changes) is the technology, as such plurality of voices is only catylized by the machinic assemblage of indivual-computer-internet-etc. But this may be likened to the very 'pre-modern' invention of the printing press (or other e.g.s) and the struggle of the Reformation to 'democratize' religious participation (Weber 1930). So is such technology-induced political change (or at least change in organization/participation) really a continuation of 'pre-modern' or 'a-modern' (Latour 1993) historical precedents? . . .continuing after coffee. . .

Posted at Oct 11/2004 02:27 PM:
Chris Witmore: This is an interesting discussion and one I think worthy further elaboration. My line is that there is a fundamental ontological difference between these media--the classic and the digital. Sure, humans may react to them similarly (the digital is often a sublated form of the other--compare the comuter desktop and array of folders and pages to the traditional office and file folder), but with blogging technologies and the wiki we are witnessing vertually instantaneous dissemination and exchange. The ability to get your information, data, and ideas out there immediately has fundamental ramifications for how we mobilize and collaboratively work with data across vast distances. Consider how immediate my response is to your positing.

With regards to blogs as "representative of modernist values in new clothing." I believe this is the wrong way to go about this. Modernist values are characterized by the simulaneous denial of the action of things (and in this case we are referring to both instruments and media) while perpetuating the myth of the human in control. And we now recognize post-modernism as a symptom rather than a solution to modernism.

If Modernism heralded the simultaneous "The Death of God" and "The Birth of Man" then what we are beginning to witness around us is "The Death of Man" and "The Birth of Nature." This occurs on many levels. Of immediate importance with regards to symmetrical archaeology is that by shifting the human from a polarized position separate from nature and things and placing them as one of many actors in collectives of people, things, etc. we have effectively resuffled the deck and situated humanity as one of many entities of nature.

The definition of what it is to be human does not end at the skin but encompasses the materialities which surround us. In this repect we come to understand these new media not as separate tools for the dissemination of ideas but as extensions of man, modes of engagement and forms of distributed cognition

Posted at Oct 11/2004 06:24 PM:
tim webmoor: Yes, that was instantaneous messaging - more so than my instant coffee. Yes, perhaps an odd place to pause with my thoughts, but I was hoping the get at the somewhat unhelpful or obfuscating labels such as 'modernism' vs. 'post-mod.' etc. Because, and I think this is illustrated by the camps of either pro-new historical epoch or anti-break with modernism, there generally is always a stronger argument for continuities rather than a gulf (culturally, socio-politically and economically) that we've somehow (rather recently) lept across. And I think this is where Latour is interesting in his (characteristic) 'implosion' of the equation (modern/post-modern) to even question the major ontological presupposition that such debates rest upon - the autonomy of the human individual. As it is generally framed as a 'we' as individuals are progressing in such and such manner historically due to our changing relationship (so external) to: technology, nature, eachother, our own consciousness, etc. So yes, as Latour is arguing, ontologically there is a continuity between where we (social theorists, historians) thought to situate current circumstances and even a-modern integrated human-nature-material existences. And where he discusses never, in fact, being modern. In asserting the primacy of the individual as the unit of consciousness and action, we've gotten ahead of ourselves. And I think this move to non-modernist conceptualization of the 'inidividual' is on solid ground on many fronts (M. Strathern and anthropology in Polynesia/Micronesia has long asserted the 'distributed person' as an unfamiliar mode of being, material culture and the active role (agency) of things, philosophy of language and consciousness (Davidson, Husserl, Brentano, Quine) with the emphasis on 'inter-subjectivity' as a better conceptualization of identity with 'others' and things, and even object-relations psychology (Winnicott, Fairbairn) in asserting 'external' (according to later categorization) phenomena as inherent in the development of consciousness. I think these all push towards a radical re-conceptualization of 'I'.

But, to get back to the blog phenomenon, I agree digital technologies are a difference-of-degree (not kind) to say the printing press or early cartography. Yet to follow my initial suggestion out, I believe that such advancing and increasingly influential technology Is forwarding (or at least enabling) a kind of plurality of voice or grass-roots democratic action. That there is a desire to utilize such developing extensions of our selves to affect change on a socio-political level. Refracted through archaeology, what are the implications of such hybrid-ontologies, but also of the process of democratizing participation with the aid of such technologies. This is where I would like to further explore the concept of 'mediation', not only in terms of being the intercessor between ineffable experiences of archaeological place and re-presentation to audiences; but also in more legalistic jargon as mediating an increasing broad and diverse engagement with archaeological information. Perhaps we must look to mediating both archaeological places with technology, and, with democratizing technologies, mediating non-archaeological participation in archaeological knowledge.

And I'm getting ahead of myself...

Posted at Oct 11/2004 08:51 PM:
Chris Witmore: Wow, that must have been some pretty strong coffee!

I do think you are on the right tract with your interest in forms of mediation and what we might describe as situated experiences and knowledges. To be sure, the ambiguity and complexity of things comes forth through a great diversity of engagements and understandings of the material world. Mediation should account for this. But as different media do different things should all media be employed in this democratization? What I mean is that Traumwerk is collaborative, organic, and ideally non-hierarchical. What were once grounds for critique of previous media forms are now possible and at-the-same-time contained within the medium. Where might this lead us?

The second question I have is that if the concept of mediation as process of translating the material world is tied up with an archaeological epistemology, what then happens when we extend our epistemology to others? How might their forms of knowledge construction differ from ours? And can we mobilize other media forms and place them in service of those interests? How might we connect this up with the project of symmetrical archaeology?

Posted at Oct 12/2004 12:53 PM:
tim webmoor: Yes, Traumwerk by its inherent operation is ideally suited to such a democratic inclusion of various engagements with things - its good at inclusion/non-hierarchical/dynamic editing/etc., but there are other media which might also serve such disparate engagements better - mediums similar to a wiki but with greater capacity to bring forth material engagements (with video, audio, cartographic functions, etc.).

Secondly, I don't think mediation (thought about in the manner of Latour's circulating reference, or tandemly, as a reflexive method of making explicit the linkage between what is thought of as subjective and objective 'evidence' in constituting arguments) is solely tied up with an arch. epistemology. Arch. has a particular manner of 'mediating' places/sites/things, but which are not drastically alternate to other frameworks for understanding the world. Yes, we do this well as our specialty is 'things' and often very little else. But in fact, some might argue (this is very true of those labeled as 'idealists' ) that All thought/action Is a never ending mediation between 'external world' as apprehended by senses and 'internal consciousness'. So that Kant would say we are hard-wired (genetically or otherwise) - our neural patterns and perceptual processes - to be conscious of the world only in a constrained or theoretically partial way. (For e.g., all must be perceived and thought of in the framework of space and time). Now, I know the knee-jerk is happening Chris. But I'm aware that the manner in which such a division has been historically posed in philosophy between external/internal 'worlds' is precisely what we're struggling to implode and by-pass. But, as later 'idealists' utilized the notion (esp. early 20th-century English idealist movment with Bosanquet and Bradley, but also with William James' 'Radical Empiricism'), mediation was not a 'bridge' to broach subject/object problem, but was the always already 'substratum' or unity prior to our reductionist, conceptual thought breaking subject/object apart along the contours of the human consciousness and body. Thus for Bradley (1893) who expounded the notion best, 'reality' Is inherently relational and mutual, and 'mediation' is the attempt to re-integrate the 'appearances' which have been splintered by consciousness into finite 'things'. This requires non-reductive thought which is caught up in an epistemology of reduction-to-parts (so parts, finite and discreet, are epistemologically/ontologically privileged), and a re-utilization of sense-intuition which, Bradley argues, is less formed by rationalistc tradition and so less trapped in dichotomous thinking. This is already what I think we have begun (and Michael early-on) with our methodological notion of 'mediation': a bringing-forth of the ineffable in a more 'whole form', so that it is not splintered by our rational habit of reduction-to-parts to understand. And new media are making such a mediation increasingly possible to a wider/remote audience. Media/mediation are working complimentary and commensurately. BUT, mediation is as a concept already much broader than ~'translation/transformation', as it has already been extensivley used in epistemology for understanding consciousness-reality problems. So I am wanting to utilize the term in this sense as well, because like media/mediation, I feel that both pushes with mediation - as method and epistemology - are commensurate (beyond a simple semantic correspondence).

So what happens when we extend mediation to 'others'. I think this is already happening in arch. and must happen (as already stated, 'mediation' as a framework is more inclusive than any well-bounded tradition of epistemology (pragmatism, logico-positivisim, hermeneutics), as it posits no inherent division between consciousness(collective/individual)-other consciousness-'external world'. So we already mediate our epistemology with others when we deliver our 'findings' to the public. In that engagement, potentially disparate frameworks for understanding abut, are worked-through, and are (or not) resolved. All going on fairly unnoticed (unconsciously). But this is the utility of a reflexive push as well, and a vital component of mediation (as I'm using it). To draw conscious attention to the manner in which we mediate frameworks for understanding the past/present all the time as archaeologists. And yes, I think media - as modes for expressing disparate frameworks in more rich (and non-linguistically trapped) manners - can be productive in exploring such other 'interests' (in fact the Chicago School/ Saul Worth or M. Rawley as an aboriginal film-maker have already done such experimental work with media as an expose of alternate frameworks of understanding the world.

So, there is much potential in exploring both notions of mediation as they inter-relate.

Posted at Oct 12/2004 03:44 PM:
Chris Witmore: I'm not sure I agree with thinking of mediation as somehow broader than notions of translation/transformation. Any mediation is at-the-same-time a transformation. Sure some qualities of the material world are brought foward through video, but many are not. Different media accomplish this in different ways. Therefore the best means for articulating reality is to bring as many forms of documentation as possible to bear upon your problem. The more the merrier. But these media do not work in issolation for there are materials and things mobilized to aide in this endeavor. Nevertheless, all of these are reductions. Indeed, one reality is transposed into a different field of reality, still that field of reality facilitates the further reduction of the intial one so that we move from archaeological site or landscape to laboratory and so on. This is one premis of multiple fields. Mediation does not work across a singular divide between reality and ideas, but rather across many small gaps.

Posted at Oct 12/2004 06:10 PM:
tim webmoor: Yes, but mediation, if anything, operates explicitly against an epistemology of explanation through reduction to discreet phenomena. Which then are 're-assembled' in a hypothetico-deductive framework to posit a re-composed 'reality'. But a 'reality' wherein the fissures/divides between the comprising 'bits' of data inherent in the reconstruction. As you say, mediation (depending upon the media employed) brings forward as much of the corporeal, holistic material world without being trapped in the 'prison house of language'. If it is not, then it is as partial as the 'standard' methods (transcription in language, graphic information, etc.) already well established in archaeology. These are of course useful transformations across the small gaps between, say, a archaeological place and GPS coordinates displayed in GIS formats; but as I make use of it, mediation might be said to bring More across Fewer gaps. The theoretical 'move', then, from such a mediation employing multiple digital media (the more the better depending upon intention) to a mediation employing multiple frameworks of explanation to bring forward as full/holistic transformation of an archaeological place as possible can, I believe, be well supported. (But this is not the same as a 'multivocal' arch., but rather, I would call it a structural reflexivity in arch. practice - [link].)

Posted at Oct 12/2004 07:06 PM:
Chris Witmore: I will take some time to think through this.

As this discussion is about reflecting upon how the symmetrical project differs from what our predecessors have done--happered by what we might call the modernist predicament--we should contextualize what we have said thus far a bit more. As it is I think it would be very difficult for anyone else to follow this and there is always a danger of straying off course. We need to contextualize and clarify...

We both agree that modernism is an extremely broad and diffuse concept. One could address it through both Shanks' and Thomas' resent texts on archaeology and modernity [link] [link].

Perhaps here we should understand modernism as a dramatization of how we have addressed certain ideological questions (cf. the Latour discussion in Ihde and Selinger 2003, 18).

Off to eat dinner (pork chops and potatoes!).

Posted at Oct 12/2004 09:40 PM:
tim webmoor: Yes, let's contextualize and clarify w/regard to modernism and dilemmas. Nice discussion.

Posted at Oct 13/2004 07:28 AM:
Chris Witmore: Cool, we should go back through and add a small introductory statement. I have started cleaning up typos and awkward statements. We should continue this and afterward we should identify some of the core elements of this discussion and draw them out a bit more. Finally, I think that there are quite a few names dropped in the course of the discussion and many are juxtaposed withour further qualification. We should either link them by creating hyperlinked pages contextualizing their relevance or state that there are quite a few relevant philosophers in this regard and hyperlink a discussion of them all together on another page... What do you think?

Posted at Oct 13/2004 02:47 PM:
tim webmoor: Well, to streamline, we might make an alternate linked page to an annotated bibliography (in fact, perhaps it would be more helpful to annotate the 'reference' section that is already started, and then add the references I've utilized. In order to contextualize the discussion and bookmark the ideas, I think its best to keep the 'dropped names'. These are the thinkers - past/present - who inform current ideas and dialogue with us (especially as such topics have been mused over by innumerable others).

Posted at Oct 15/2004 08:08 AM:
Chris Witmore: After having worked through this page I think we should restructure this section by having a series of focused conversations around particular topics. This piece was kind of a general brainstorm discussion of digital media, modernist issues and thought, and mediation to get us started. I will start of a short intro and place this discussion on another link under conversation one: digital media, modernist issues and thought, and mediation. We can then take out the salient issues and fill in the general Musing over Modernism page. What do you think?

Posted at Dec 03/2004 08:17 PM:
tim webmoor: And see M Shanks' [link] thoughts on archaeology and modernity.

Posted at Feb 03/2005 06:01 AM:
tim webmoor: Political organizations of related interest The Center for Digital Democracy, MediaMatters and our own Stanford Center for Internet and Society. On the other side to the digital enabling of more complex articulations from actors/actants not ordinarily mobilized, see Homeland Security website with digital visualization (of course, the Foucauldian application of visual media!) forefronted by STANFORD!