[NetBehaviour] 10 Minutes of Doubt - Charlotte Webb guest editing Furtherfield
Charlotte Elizabeth Webb
c.webb4 at chelsea.arts.ac.uk
Thu Apr 13 11:33:58 CEST 2017
I wanted to share the editorial introducing my guest editor stint at Furtherfield #dreamjob
Full text below, but u can check it on Furtherfield site too http://bit.ly/10mindbt :) :)
10 minutes of doubt
Do you believe everything you said today? How can you trust what you feel? What is it about today’s truth that makes it so difficult to believe?
The journalistic affectation for pre-fixing all manner of phenomena with the term ‘post-’ has become commonplace over the last few decades. Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-normal, post-internet, post-work and post-truth are all concepts crystalizing around a pervasive sense of uncertainty, instability and social unrest. While I have the honour of guest editing the Furtherfield website for the next few months, I am hoping to bring together a number of writers, artists and thinkers who will, in various ways, explore two of the ‘post-s’ I find most urgent and compelling: post-truth and post-work.
Consolidated by Brexit and the US presidential campaign, and designated as word of the year 2016 by the Oxford Dictionary<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016>, ‘post-truth’ is now a term deeply engrained in the social and political imaginary. Since ‘post’ can signify the internalization of phenomena (the internet is inside us all), one might even say we are post-post-truth, living with it as a general condition of our reality. The post-truth condition privileges narrative over facts, appealing to people’s beliefs, ideologies, prejudices and assumptions, rather than presenting them with ‘evidence’. This is, of course, nothing new – facts have never been anything without subjective processes of interpretation, contextualization, manipulation and propaganda. As Simon Jenkins points out<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/26/post-truth-politics-online-facts-donald-trump-lies>, ‘Of all golden-age fallacies, none is dafter than that there was a time when politicians purveyed unvarnished truth’ – lies are, he suggests, the ‘raw material’ of political narrative.
[Trump saying Hilary Clinton was amazing while the crowd chant 'lock her up']
Social media holds the potential to both exacerbate and alleviate the chaos of post-truth reality. On the one hand the echo-chambers created by partisan social media feeds limit and blinker us; on the other, social media is a weapon being deployed by armies of citizen journalists and organizations<https://www.bellingcat.com/> committed to fact-checking<https://exposingtheinvisible.org/resources/inspiration/fact-checking-social-media> and exposing political lies and obfuscation. To feel uncomfortable about the confusion and psychological strain arising from the post-truth condition is surely a reasonable human response. As Professor Dan Kahan suggests<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04m7zrs>:
‘we should be anxious that in a certain kind of environment, where facts become invested with significance that turns them almost into badges of membership in and loyalty to groups, that we’re not going to be making sense of the information in a way that we can trust. We’re going to be unconsciously fitting what we see to the stake we have in maintaining our standing in the group, and I don’t think that’s what anyone wants to do with their reason'
What Kahan points to here is, I think, an opportunity to reflect carefully on the stake we have in maintaining our sense of identity and belonging through the ‘facts’ we choose to believe. Despite the discomfort we may feel, might there be a way to take advantage of this cultural moment? Perhaps recognizing our own doubts about credibility can become a fruitful catalyst for adjusting our sense of responsibility to engage with a range of news sources, listen to opposing points of view, and critically evaluate the information we are presented with. In fact, Kahan prescribes 10 minutes of doubt every morning to deal with the anxiety that arises from a feeling that you can’t trust your own feelings.
Can we have a good life without work, or is work part of what it means to live a decent life? What would you do if you didn’t have to work?
One of the most significant societal shifts taking place due to the advancement of technology is the transformation of what it means to work, and to be a worker. The nine to five is dead (or soon will be), and work is being radically transformed as a new global workforce comes online, technological innovations advance at super high speed, and new business models emerge. Automation is now a firm feature of mainstream discourse, and depictions of robots replacing jobs are everywhere in the global media imaginary.
The Bank of England’s chief economist recently projected that 15 million UK jobs will be lost to automation in the next 2 decades<http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/speeches/2015/864.aspx>, which is equivalent to approximately 80 million US jobs. 47% of white collar jobs are predicted to be lost to automation by 2035, according to a 2016 report by Citi GPS and the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford<http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Citi_GPS_Technology_Work_2.pdf>. It is not just routine tasks that will be replaced - asset management, analytics, patient care, law, construction and financial trading can all be done (and is being done) by robots. Mining giant Rio Tinto already uses 45 240-ton driverless trucks to move iron ore in two Australian mines<http://www.riotinto.com/ourcommitment/spotlight-18130_18328.aspx>, saying it is cheaper and safer than using human drivers.
At the same time as these developments are evolving at break neck speed, we are living in an increasingly unequal world, where the gap between the rich and poor is getting bigger. According to a recent Oxfam report<http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2016/01/62-people-own-same-as-half-world-says-oxfam-inequality-report-davos-world-economic-forum>, 62 identifiable individuals own same wealth as poorest 50% of the world’s population – that’s 3.6 billion people. And 1% of the world’s population own more than the rest of us combined. Capital grows faster than labour, so if you’re already rich, your money earns more than your labour ever could, which reinforces existing wealth inequality. Furthermore, extreme inequality involves people thinking greedily about finite resources, and not seeing personal greed as having wider consequences. If people see that the 1% own more than the rest, there’s danger their response is to play same game and look to join that 1% (or 5%/10%)
Not everyone is equally equipped to deal with the changes ahead, but since artists, designers and critical thinkers are amongst the best-resourced to do so, I see it as our responsibility to consider how we can help others deal with what lies ahead. As with confronting post-truth reality, acknowledging a post-work future can be seen as an opportunity to forge a better path forward for ourselves and others. We might take a cue from what we know about post-truth, and try to create narratives (backed up by collectively verified facts) that persuade the world to proceed towards an equitable world of work where solidarity and cooperation can thrive.
10 minutes of doubt
The articles gathered over the next two months as part of my guest editorship of Furtherfield might be understood as moments of corrective doubt. They are an opportunity to speculate about issues of truth and labour, and to proceed as artists should – by imagining alternative realities and evolving conceptual, aesthetic and practical ways to inhabit them. You can expect revelations about the labour conditions of those who work for contemporary artists from Ronald Flanagan, reflections on robots in the workplace from Katharine Dwyer<https://twitter.com/tumble33>, and an interview about the repopulation of Monopoly with cryptocurrencies from Francesca Baglietto<https://twitter.com/frencis85>. Filippo Lorenzin<https://twitter.com/fi_lor> will consider Dada as a response to the post-truth condition, Carleigh Morgan<https://twitter.com/CyborgReine> will consider what makes good curatorial practice in this contemporary moment, reorienting current discussions away from free speech absolutism vs censorship to questions of judgement and responsibility. Alex McLean<https://twitter.com/yaxu> will use the metaphor of weaving to consider the role of craft in a post-work society. How might coding be understood as a form of textile liberated from its militaristic origins? Chloe Stavrou<https://www.instagram.com/kinezaaa/> will consider the potential objectification of ‘Greekness’ through a series of interviews relating to Documenta 14, Athens.
Happy doubting to all.
Where this email is unrelated to the business of University of the Arts London the opinions expressed in it are the opinions of the sender and do not necessarily constitute those of University of the Arts London.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NetBehaviour