“The use of the term ‘mass media’ has been unfortunate. All media, especially languages, are mass media so far at least as their range in space and time is concerned. If by ‘mass media’ is meant a mechanized mode of a previous communication channel, then printing is the first of the mass media. Press, telegraph, wireless, gramophone, movie, radio, TV, are mutations of the mechanization of writing, speech, gesture. Insofar as mechanization introduces the ‘mass’ dimension, it may refer to a collective effort in the use of the medium, to larger audiences or to instantaneity of reception. Again, all of these factors may create difficulty of ‘feedback’ or lack of rapport between ‘speaker’ and audience. There has been very little discussion of any of these questions, thanks to the gratuitous assumption that communication is a matter of transmission of information, message or idea. This assumption blinds people to the aspect of communication as participation in a common situation. And it leads to ignoring the form of communication as the basic art situation which is more significant than the information or idea ‘transmitted’.”
McLuhan, Marshall. 1954. ‘Notes on the Media as Art Forms’. Explorations. Studies in Culture and Communication 2 (August): 6–13, 6. Edited by Edmund S. Carpenter.
(This is still one of my favourite McLuhan quotes. I makes a blast, and resets our intuitions. Mass mediation is just an effect of mechanization taking command – now go insert ‘cooperation’ instead of 1950s ‘communication‘!)
Thursday, 24 January 2019, University of Siegen Herrengarten 3, 57072 Siegen, room AH 217/218
13:15 Opening Remarks: Standards Revisited Sebastian Gießmann (University of Siegen) / Nadine Taha (University of Siegen)
13:30 Anna Echterhölter (University of Vienna) Red and Black Boxes: Standardization as Mesuroclasm in German New Guinea
14:30 Nadine Taha (University of Siegen) George Eastman and the Calendar Reform
16:00 Geoffrey C. Bowker (University of California, Irvine) Standard Time: Computers, Clocks and Turtles – via Zoom Conference
17:00 Lawrence Busch (Michigan State University) Markets and Standards – via Zoom Conference
Friday, 25 January 2019
10:00 JoAnne Yates (MIT, Sloan School of Management) A New Model for Standard Setting: How IETF became the Standards Body for the Internet
11:00 Thomas Haigh (University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee / University of Siegen) The Accidental Standard: How a Box Became an Industry
13:00 Sebastian Gießmann (University of Siegen) Standardizing Digital Payments
14:00 Anne Helmond (University of Amsterdam)/ Fernando van der Vlist (University of Amsterdam / University of Siegen) ‘It’s Graphs All the Way Down’
are not easy to come by. As infrastructural media they coordinate the
social to an ever-growing extent, thus creating conditions of
cooperation. Standards do so not just by their sociotechnical power, but
also by public uptake and controversies that put their accountability
into question. They can also be understood as engineering and
bureaucratic media that form a basis and condition for cooperation.
Historically, practices of
standardization can be traced back to antiquity, especially in the
history of coins, writing, and measurements. But pre-modern standards
were bound to flounder and dissipate. Early modern knowledge cultures –
partly – realized standardization via hand-made scientific instruments
that extended metrological chains. While pre-industrial attempts to
standardize the aggregation of information in administrative forms have
been limited in scale and scope, 19th century industrialization
interconnected with nationalized politics extended the territories of
standardization. Media infrastructures such as the postal service and
telegraphy became transnational through their administration in
international organizations and a legal foundation via international
treaties. Scale and scope of – inherently political and normative –
standards and metrologies were at the same time constitutive for
colonial prospection and rule.
Computing has given rise to its own
regimes and obsessions of non-governmental standardizing. While early
digital computers were unique, the trajectories of standardization were
then tied to governmental contract research, commercialization and its
coordinative and delegative practices. Serial production and the
diffusion of architectural norms became a matter of economic competition
in the era of mainframe computing in organizations. In multiple ways
both the networking of heterogeneous computers and the success of the
IBM-compatible PC did create a pathway to “open standards” that made
computers publicly accessible. In the transpacific and global arena of
hardware and software production, hyper-standardization has been an
issue ever since. This also involves the questions of formats that
mediate bureaucratic processes, textual representation, visual and
auditory perception, and digital audiovisuality. Formats thus have
become standards that mediate digital practices in their own right, just
like network protocols and Internet standards. In many ways, the
ecology of the World Wide Web is an ecology due to its standardizing
bodies, communities of practice, and institutions like the Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Our aim is to understand how standards
generalize and universalize media technologies, and to ask: How do
metrology, industrialization, and imperialism/colonialism intersect with
standards? What is the relation between standards, digital media, and
coordination? How to explain the longue durée, ecology, and the enduring
power of standards to configure cooperation? What is the relation
between standards, delegative power, scale, and scope of media?
How does a distributed ledger become a medium? Why do people count on blockchain as a future technology? Our research project does not answer these questions on an abstract level. We rather aim to explore the development and operating of blockchain infrastructure on site. Initially, we conduct interviews with stakeholders working on applications for payment systems and the Internet of Things.
Blockchains in Action assumes that development and transformation processes can be observed in local material practices of cooperation. We understand blockchains as infrastructural and public media. Their capacities for mediation only become observable in practice, which we approach through a combination of ethnography and media theory.
It is my great pleasure to welcome you to “Repositories in Cooperation”. Our panel for “Varieties of Cooperation” developed out of preparatory work for the Collaborative Research Center „Media of Cooperation“, in which we have attempted to refocus and reappropriate Susan Leigh Star’s and James Griesemer’s original notion of the boundary object. Within our 2015 workshop on “The Translation of Boundary Objects” we have started to re-engage with a more specific understanding that returns to Star’s list of four type of boundary objects: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and forms/labels. The results of this have now been published in German as “Grenzobjekte und Medienforschung”, along with a translation of ten seminal texts by Star and her collaborators. As Erhard Schüttpelz has shown in his commentary on “This is Not a Boundary Object” all four types deal with the relation between modularity and extendability, with the relation between “parts” and “wholes”. 
I was just looking up some etymological details concerning “cooperation” and “coordination.” Google Ngram still is a rather intransparent source, but using it along with the Oxford English Dictionary gives a nice quantitative vs. qualitative account. This blogpost comes without interpretation, but with an embedded ngram. Consider it just being a trace of my work (or Google’s).