Building Soccer Fields in downtown Montreal
I’m often faced with the question: “Why is ISF an activist group?”
arguement 1) We have changed the landscape of wireless internet access in Montreal. We offer a service to partners that want to offer free wireless internet access as well as a service to the users.
The criticism of this is that we are offering free access to people who are already empowered with technology. Also, we are responsable for successfully accelerating the encroachment of technology into public spaces which could be considered a *bad thing*.
arguement 2) We are a group of concerned and motivated citizens taking control of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) infrastructure in our city. That’s empowering as an example to others that this important part of our life isn’t only the domain of companies and corporations or even governments. To me, that’s a more significant impact than the actual fact that we have 55 hotspots and 9000 users
Counter - it’s also very ethereal and depends on us continuing to surpass our community’s expectations of what individuals or non-profits “should” be able to accomplish in the area of ICT. Also, in terms of really making a difference in the control of ICT in Montreal, it would be much more impressive if we were having success with a Mesh project.
argument 3) We are hacking the built city.
This statement is based on the idea that as wireless devices and services proliferate and ubiquitous computing becomes a reality, the physical environment (especially the built city) is rapidly becoming enhanced space or mixed-reality. The supposedly seperate existences of off-line and on-line are intersecting and overlapping - most rapidly in cities.
That’s obvious and basic knowledge to most of you.
Where this get’s exciting is that by citizens, artists and non-profit groups developing and adapting these technologies (portable devices, wireless connectivity, mobile- and location-based applications) and their model (who is supposed to use them and for what purpose) we are able to impact and change this enhanced space and through that have an actual impact on how the built city is experienced. To be sure, we have constraints on how much we can hack the city - it’s not as if we can easily directly confront the power of the the police or building developpers. But we can work to allow spaces to better retain memories, to promote both stronger and a larger number of looser associations between individual, to increase valuing of art and artists, or to help people get laid (more) on the basis of shared interests as well as looks.
Another way of describing this:
I’m most excited about is the idea that ISF is building soccer fields. This is my new favorite way of explaining a major thing that I think is important about ISF. At the conference, one of the organizers told us this great story of a non-profit that wanted to help a local community of new immigrants from South or Central America that was having lots of problems. Their kids were having difficulties at school, there was lots of spousal abuse, violence in the neighborhood, etc. Instead of starting a program to attack this or that issue (after-school programs, men support groups, increased police presence) the foundation spent $100,000 to build a soccer field in the area. And the problems were significantly reduced over the following two years.
Why?
Because people from the community got together to play soccer and after and before the games started talking to each other about their problems. They realized that their problems were shared problems, systematic problems, and they became able to access each other as resources. The soccer field provided them the ability to increase the strong and lose ties in their community and they were able to self-organize to procure the resources they needed to improve life in their community.
I felt weird calling myself an activist at this conference while sitting beside people who were working on human-rights in the Philippines or on improving democratic voter-turnout in the southern states of the US. When presenting ISF during speedgeek I was worried about people’s perception of ISF (and of me) as legitimately “activist”. During sessions on brainstorming they were all thinking of ways to use SMS messages for this voter-turn out campaign or to get news past that repressive government. I was preoccupied with wondering where the social software was for mobile phones (yes, besides Dodgeball) and why *every* project used a one-to-many push or a many-to-one pull conception (as opposed to groups within groups, individuals as network-bridgers, etc). I loved hearing the example of the soccerfield and having the idea legitimized of providing platforms that were not explicitly geared towards this or that agenda but that strengthened community by such things as increasing the abilities of individuals and groups and lowering the barriers they face towards community-oriented activities and organizing as well as minimizing the completely unlevel playing field that we are on with for-profit (and resultingly resource-rich) entities in terms of controlling our communities. (that was an ugly sentence - sorry).
So, that’s (my take on)\ what we’re doing, and that’s what I’m going to try and convey at the panel presentation on Saturday. With basically no money and only the intellectual and time resources of it’s volunteers, ISF is trying to convert our 55 hotspots into great big soccer stadiums all around Montreal -hopefully complete with locker-rooms, art galleries, chalkboards, swingsets, libraries, booths to tell your city councillor what you think she should be doing, recording studios, and massage booths. It’s a grand vision, and I don’t know if we’ll succeed, but I guess that’s why we’re all a part of this - because it’s audacious and exciting and it’s supposed to be beyond us .
—————-
I want to refine this argument. If any of you would point out weaknesses either in the reasoning or the way in which I expressed it I would be very grateful.
September 26th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
hey mike, did you see my post on public domain? check it, I think it’s relevant… namely that ISF is not just protecting, but you are CREATING a public space - a non-commerical place where life just happens, not reduced to a commerical transaction. You are enriching the space by giving a new -and public-place for communication.
I’ve told you before, but ISF is a brilliant project because it has worked. on a volunteer basis. for the greater good. (even if articulating that good is difficult).
you should check this book by safdie, on public space -from an architecture view-but very relevant to what you are doing.
city after the automobile.
September 26th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
ah, beautiful - i didn’t know you had a blog; now i do. :)
i get the soccer field analogy better after reading it here… the link had been somewhat tenuous when we chatted about it a few days ago, but i see what you mean now. ISF is interested in providing the space (whether it be physical or virtual) in which community can ‘happen’.
the one-to-many push v. many-to-one push comment is useful too - i agree that too often, people forget that there is real merit in encouraging ‘old fashioned’ social ties to develop. (i’m thinking Granovetter here) Technology is great, but not always essential/necessary.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:08 am
thanks you guys - (running off to class). yes hugh, I read your post. and yes it’s completely relevant. I think that we’re building an enhanced place so that things like public domain content can be more visible.
September 27th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I asked the board of ISF for feedback. This is an excerpt from Benoit that I wanted to post here:
“My favorite would be how to get people to look
at content the are not initially interested in or did not previously know exists. Toward that end, how much can/should or can’t/shouldn’t control what people see. Not from a layout or even from a content organisation perspective, but the context in which it is displayed, what is chosen, and why. It touches several issues overlapping marketing, publicity, curating and advocacy.”
September 27th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
The interesting thing about ISF as an activist group is its demand for public dialogue,through which social change happens, as illustrated in your soccer field analogy.
This makes me think of constructivist pedagogy and the progressive teacher’s aim for students to construct meaning through action and experience. John Dewey argues that children should be active citizens in a community of learners, making meaning together and engaging in democratic collaboration. One of the criticisms to this type of pedagogical forum is practical. Teachers must be aware of the goals and objectives of a line of inquiry, facilitating learning to go in the “correct” direction. This is particularly important for subjects like math and science. Ideally, it is a student, within a community who recognizes that the evidence doesn’t add up, and redirects everyone towards the right path. Unfortunately, that student, if present, typically has a small voice and minimal impact. Therefore, the teacher plays an important role in shaping student inquiry, which contradicts a central constructivist idea of authentic, student-driven learning.
Why am I telling you this? Because – shit, this always happens, me forgetting half way between a relatively important idea – because…
Well, 1) bringing the conversations back to emergence and connections. You should continue to ask how this space is similar to other projects, like the soccer field, like education, like architecture; 2) there was something in Benoit’s comment that got me started on this practical concern about constraints and the need to shape learning. How does or how will ISF manipulate its participants to engage in a positive direction? How does the layout/content/technology influence action, like teachers do in the classroom? How or will this contradict the goal to provide “platforms that were not explicitly geared towards this or that agenda but that strengthened community”?
September 27th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
coops.
1) we are definitely doing that. and we’re trying to benefit from the experience and expertise of architects, urban planners, and community and media activists to learn from them what “works” and to inform our design.
2) Hmm. My first reaction is that I don’t want ISF to be a teacher telling it’s students (users) where to go and what to do. But I know that’s not what you’re saying. The fact is, we are setting up the scene and some of the rules, and we need to take our responsability for what kind of use we expect people should make with it.
Truly, I think we’re out of our depth here - but the thing is - if we don’t do it, only private companies will. and that’s no good.
what needs to happen is lots of groups like us need to take whacks at this in lots of different cities. through sharing experiences of our many attempts, we will gradually figure out some good ways to do this. That’s all I can figure.
September 27th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Really like this piece Mike, it crystalises some topics I had been thinking about (and lots I hadn’t got to).
I particularly like argument 2, that ISF are activists because they change the public perception of what can be done in technology by people other than just the big companies. In fact I think that your counter-argument, that you have to keep exceeding expectation of what can be done is probably too harsh. Of course it’s great to keep improving on what you did before and make people continually amazed about what you can pull off. But also there is a strong argument that once you have changed the perception about what’s possible ‘enough’ you’ve done what needs to be done.
That is, once people get that they can do this stuff it doesn’t matter whether it’s ISF going to mesh or maybe a bunch of new kids who create an alternative to the cell networks (or an orbital elevator or open source nano technology) just as long as it gets done by someone. What I’m saying is, changing the initial perception that this stuff just isn’t doable is an end in itself.
September 27th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
mike, I mean public domain as a whole concept, both of art etc, but also physical and public space. the public shphere as a whole - everything non-commercial, non-private, non-separate.
isf’s role is much more important than providing a way for “public domain content to be more visible”…
rather, ISF’s mission creates (virtual) public space. THAT is inherently good (for the same reason that parks, libraries, public squares & soccer fields are good). and — if you want to get financial about it — those have positive effect on societymike, I mean public domain as a whole concept, both of art etc, but also physical and public space. the public shphere as a whole - everything non-commercial, non-private, non-separate.
isf’s role is much more important than providing a way for “public domain content to be more visible”…
rather, ISF’s mission creates (virtual) public space. THAT is inherently good (for the same reason that parks, libraries, public squares & soccer fields are good). and — if you want to get financial about it — those have positive effect on society
Creation of public space is enriching for everyone around, in the same way a park is, in many subtle and non-obvious ways (as your soccer analogy illustrates).
And ISF is activist in the sense that it is proving — like wikipedia, like free software — that people are very happy to contribute to the creation of public space, even if the dominant model of our times can find no “motive” to do so. ie isf is activist because it creates public space outisde the now-holy commercial transaction.
September 27th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
I think it’s going to be hard to add anything really relevant to what’s been said on this post already.
I hope i am not repeating anything that was already said too obviously, but I wanted to add is that this analogy of the soccer field is about empowerment. Making the leap from trying to effect change in this really deterministic didactic way, for example in the way that the Cap sites were doing, to being more open and engaging and providing opportunities for people to discover alternatives and possibilities on their own.
Sure i guess Cap sites look more accessible, because they are mandated to exist in public locales, but in fact they were a failure because the infrastructure dictated what could be done with the technology ie; come build your resume between 9am - 5pm monday to friday- because that’s when we’re open, and those are the tools we have available.
Maybe ISF seems less traditionally activist because it doesn’t pay lip service to what the idea of access used to mean, but it’s certainly provided opportunities for groups to make use of technology in ways that wouldn’t have been possible before - which sounds like the definition of activism to me.
Maybe more later…
September 27th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
“Making the leap from trying to effect change in this really deterministic didactic way, for example in the way that the Cap sites were doing, to being more open and engaging and providing opportunities for people to discover alternatives and possibilities on their own.”
thanks mir. that was better said than the way I did it.
hugh - I have to look up what “public domain” is and whether it has as large a definition as you give it. What you’re talking about is what we’re trying to do - but I feel like i’ve / we’ve bitten off more than we can chew (starting to get nervous).
thanks for commenting, all y’all. I’m definitely going to follow up on this train of thought.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
ha! that’s a typical mtl3p reseponse! “surely what we’re doing can’t be that amazing?”
yes, it is…don’t get nervous, roll with it. and who cares the defn of public domain, the beauty of wikipedia is we can change it if we want. ditto with what activists are “supposed to do.”
keep up the great work.
September 27th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
Actually what occurs to me on a second read through is that inside Benoits comment is this interesting class analysis.
who finds what interesting is often a question of class and background.
So to think about local content and “hacking the city”from that perspective than if ISF gets ++ ubiquitous(sp?) than it is addressing issues of class and privalege and not just creating an ivory tower for uni students and freelance webdesigners.
The more one sees of what other people around them are doing the less possible it is to live in a bubble, it’s like a wireless response to gated communities…
- if and when the local content takes off. (she says, not to sound too pollyanna)
also I think Hugh is right about public domain, it’s anything run by a government or a public institution that the citizens of an area are paying for.
September 27th, 2005 at 9:12 pm
re: public domain, what I mean is anything that belongs to the public (ie is not private), or anywhere where the public is allowed to go (ie not private). ie public domain is EVERYTHING that is not controlled by private interest … and governments, insomuch as they may be restrictive, do not necessarily work to defend public domain.
from wikipedia (sorry!):
“The public domain comprises the body of knowledge and innovation (especially creative works such as writing, art, music, and inventions) in relation to which no person or other legal entity can establish or maintain proprietary interests.”
And I herewith extend that to public space (including virtual) as well.
September 28th, 2005 at 6:51 am
“ha! that’s a typical mtl3p reseponse! “surely what we’re doing can’t be that amazing?”"
;-p It’s true. that was a lame-ass response of mine.
“and who cares the defn of public domain, the beauty of wikipedia is we can change it if we want. ditto with what activists are “supposed to do.”"
I think i’m in love with that response towards having a definition questioned. I might not need a morning coffee because of you, Hugh.
mir - having trouble formulating this - but what I like about Benoit’s post is that there is no assumed correct/informed view of the information. It’s not like an upperclass/artistic/intellectual type would sit down at a local soccer field and have a complete view of it. It’s (could be viewed as) a matter of getting exposure outside your community. You know - like the theories behind University of the Streets - that eveyone is an expert - or at least has expertise in areas like healthcare or economics because of how they are affected? Except our thing would be that no-ones a complete expert on the local community of a local space. Everyone has something to learn - an ability to intergrate more - irrespective of previous education or class-tastes.
I think I do need a coffee afterall. that wasn’t well explained.
September 28th, 2005 at 8:55 am
I think what you are trying to say is what I was saying, but maybe I wasn’t clear enough.
when I said “who finds what interesting” i meant yes it is like a bunch of cho-cho uni types sitting around loving the digital nomad versus a bunch of park-ex kids sitting around sms-ing the latests details from the great race to each other, ie; local media is a class issue.
but what Benoit is saying is that the possibilities for different communities to learn and become interested in what each other are doing is there, and just needs to be hu… for lack of a better word exploited.
So I think I was trying to say what you were trying to say, and now I am trying to say it again, and maybe failing again.
But, is it really important that people learn things from outside their field of reference? - Just playing devils advocate here.
I am reminded of a time all the kids from my shul (reform jewish) went and played softball with the chasids from up the street. I can’t remember why, everything went swimmingly until the girls got up to bat - then it turned into a holy war.
Okay maybe that’s a bad example, but I am just trying to argue with you.
(comme d’habitude)
Isn’t local media more about connecting with people who are similiar? I am thinkingn ow of how most public spaces have their kinds of “crowds”
sorry now i am just using this comment to avoid work, I’m a gonna shuddup now.
September 28th, 2005 at 9:03 am
okay so I shouldn’t even have written that comment above because I just found something better over at Danah Boyds blog,
so I will cut and paste it here and hope I don’t look like I am comment slamming you or something…
”
There will be increasing technological advancements, but to be significant will require adoption on a social level. Yeah, javascript and amateur publishing have been around but in the last two years, we’ve seen genuinely mass adoption because of AJAX and blogging tools. Of course, the funny thing is that i keep seeing adverts for “Web2.0 Developers” but i still haven’t seen an advert for “Web2.0 Social Scientists.” We are still working in an advertising economy which means eyeballs matter and acquisitions have shown that adoption matters. So why not hire people who understand people’s needs? Anyhow…
I think that the biggest loose canon is the business model of all of this. Are we really comfortable relying on advertising still? How long will that last? Is there an economic innovation this round?
I also still believe that the answer to figuring out a lot of this is glocalization. It is not just about the social component, but introduces the legal, market and technological needs. We’ve got to move beyond the global village and focus on how people will repurpose it for their needs. This is why i think that issues of remix are essential to this narrative. What hiphop artists and anime remixers are doing is teaching us what it means to consume and produce as a connected process. In tech land, this is the value of OpenAPIs - this is fundamentally about remixing technology. Of course, all the efforts to legitimize this are dangerous. Part of the glory of hacking and remixing is the rebellious feeling of resistance. More importantly, anyone remixing is understandably wary of the institutions who are opening up or creative commons-ing the process. Aside from not wanting to be told what to do, there is fear of being too reliant on the master. This is part of the trick of OpenAPIs and CC licenses - they allow the owners to maintain power through a different incentive system. You are meant to feel like you have access as long as you want, but the one who giveth can taketh away. That, of course, is a longer conversation. But it’s important to remember that the power issues in remix are not solved by OpenAPIs and CC licenses. Of course, i’m all in favor of OpenAPIs because i think that they will push us further into remix culture, much to the chagrin of current hegemonic institutions. We just need to be careful so that we don’t get it all banned.
”
yeah. say it.
the whole post is here
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/09/25/why_web20_matte_1.html
September 28th, 2005 at 11:27 am
I am quite interested by this thread. I have been thinking a lot about public space and private space, both real and virtual, and I am as usual quite interested to see not just how those who are developing and theorizing community wifi’s capacity to create virtual public space use that space, but others as well. Historical lessons suggest that people often pass through public space to engage privately with the internet in the way that they choose, but this has been (for some people, anyway) changed by the adoption and use of blogs.
On the infrastructure level, I think what ISF is doing is very interesting, but we cannot forget that it is a model that promotes SHARING of resources as oppsed to a recreation of the underlying infrastructure. This is not a bad thing; in fact it may turn out to be a commanding new model for delivering community services. But to expand on the soccer field analogy, it is as if the soccer field belongs to a company who lets the community build on it. At the moment there is no trouble with the field, but the fact remains that it does not FUNDAMENTALLY belong to the community.
In sum, there are still two levels of this experiment to explore — that of the eventual use made by the folks who use it, and that of the structures that make it possible.
September 28th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
nice one alison. I wouldn’t have expected you (the academic) to be the one to bring us back to the underlying technology ;-)
I could argue about the definition of “fundamental belonging” because I don’t think what it all comes down to is who owns the wires, but I won’t because I think you’re right on.
September 28th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
this is something that worries me about ISF etc. is it possible that the carriers - bell etc - will find a way to shut it down? what if isf comes up with a massive mesh that covers all of mtl, and no one had to pay for internet anymore. what then?
condos on your soccer fields?
September 29th, 2005 at 7:26 pm
1)theres lots of ways that the project could die - but that’s probably not one of them.
and I’m not sure about the massivemesh situation. First - *someone* would have to pay for access to the rest of the internet - and that’s not cheap. Second, even if we had a mesh covering all of MTL, we could still make location portals / soccerfields work.
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:58 pm
Yulblog conversation starters
God forbid that you should find yourself at next Wednesday’s Yulblog meeting with nothing to talk about so I decided to give you some conversation starters. In what may very well be the best photograph ever taken of a Yulblogger,…
October 21st, 2005 at 11:51 pm
cyberspace metaphor obsolete
from Karl Schroeder - this ties into the pundit post and supports the soccer field post I did a while back: It’s this overlay of the virtual over the real that makes the cyberspace metaphor obsolete. Cyberspace, after all, is…
October 23rd, 2005 at 10:16 pm
pushing meme’s
I’ve tried to spark some interest on opensource mmorgp’s on the gamecode mailing list. (GameCODE is a reseach group at Concordia that studies the sociology of video games. I was an RA there last year.) Nothing back for a while…
November 1st, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Hacking the City, Creating Community
Michael Lenczner wrote to me suggesting that I check out a recent post on his weblog about some of the larger issues raised by his…
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:31 am
world changing
Over the last few months I figured out that WorldChanging was an interesting place with lots of interesting optimistic techies hanging around there. I read a few interesting articles on wireless there - all written by Jamais . So I…
November 8th, 2005 at 9:34 am
ok i’ll jump in… on hacking the city
1. skateboarding has been a form of hacking the city for a long time now — consider the ways in which skateboarders reclaim city spaces and appropriate them for other purposes than what they were intended for… some of these are communitarian in nature, some are not.
2. Mike - you need to check out the wifi possibilities of the nintendo_ds — nintendogs alone is a city hack build around the intensely communal and very activist identity of dog owners and dog lovers.
jus’ 2 cents.
November 8th, 2005 at 2:56 pm
re: nintendo ds - hmm - maybe allow some kind of meetup for nintendo ds players? I wonder how many games can be played multiplayer?