Getting “Under the Hood”: Julian Oliver and Danja Vasiliev’s NETworkshop
by Dorien Zandbergen
From March 25 to 29 we had the kick-off of our first event in the Forms of Todays Futures series: the NETworkshop. For a week 25 participants with very different backgrounds were immersed in the hands-on net-politics of the Berlin-based hackers, artists and teachers Julian Oliver and Danja Vasiliev. By inviting the participants to create computer networks using command-prompt Linux codes, and by teaching them how to sniff data packets in the air, Vasiliev and Oliver offered the participants ways of understanding and changing their technological environment in new ways.
The different participants had their own specific reasons for putting time and effort into this NETworkshop. For some it was a way to reconnect with a technopolitical standpoint they were already familiar with. For others the workshop offered the opportunity to learn something entirely new about our technological environment. There were some for whom the workshop was important because it offered them new social connections and there were others who had been writing about the internet in philosophical or sociological ways, but who wanted a material understanding as well.
The full content and scope of what Oliver and Vasiliev have to tell – stories that can also be found at hackerconferences, hackerspaces, and in discussions online – deserve way more attention than I can grant it in this short post. Yet you can catch a glimpse of what the participants learned by reading the accounts of Tessel Renzenbrink, Zane Kripe and others collected at this page.
I had already followed Julian and Danja’s course twice. So this time, my interest was less about the exact technological and political insights given by Oliver and Vasiliev, but in the ways that the workshop made the participants more acutely aware of how they live their technological reality in their everyday life contexts. How did this workshop make them more aware of their own, non-explicit, technological politics?
I asked the participants how they thought the knowledge that they gained during the NETworkshop would be of use in their everyday lives. I was given roughly four different types of responses:
- One type of response came from people already familiar with net-politics who were willing to continue to explore the option to build their own, independent networks. They wanted to continue educating others, and to learn command-prompt level internet navigation more deeply.
- Another response came from people who were, likewise, convinced of the political value of the tools and skills given in this workshop. Yet, they anticipated limitations in their capacity to implement and push further what they learned in their everyday life environments. They foresaw a lack of technical skill within their social networks and showed awareness about the difficulty for people within their environment to implement seeming easy security requirements like having to remember long passwords.
- A third type of response came from participants who did feel capable, in principle, to continue using the internet “on the command line” and in more responsible and cautious ways, yet who admitted that they simply loved too much the easy options provided to them by commercial graphical software and free online services. They anticipated that strict implementation of privacy-awareness would result, for them, in social isolation and a loss of technological fun.
- The final type of response came from someone who thought that this workshop was not so interesting. He experienced the NETworkshop to be about “mere technology”, and a technology that is not so different from other kinds of technology. This response resonated with what some audience members had said during our evening of debate in this week. For these people, information technologies are simply tools, that can be used for good or bad, that are made by others and that they can distance themselves from.
These four types of responses illustrate, I believe, the difference in positions that people may take up vis-à-vis information technologies more generally. They suggest that people’s ways of experiencing “agency” in “the information society” is shaped in relation to many factors other than just their computer skills. They are shaped, among others, in relation to their socio-economic context, their language skills, larger capitalist structures, and the extent to which they perceive technology not only as “tools” but also as “environments.”
In order to have a good conversation about politics in our information society, we need to engage all these perceptions and experiences. In this sense, I think Oliver and Vasiliev’s workshop gives us an extremely valuable way of beginning this conversation.