Loose Couplings
Collectivity at the intersection of digital and urban space
In the recent past, various forms of togetherness have risen to amazing prominence, calling for a thorough review of common notions of the collective: Protest movements such as Anonymous develop decentralized forms of control in the Internet that are then transported into urban space. Members of the Occupy movement claim urban spaces while organizing themselves via social media networks. New types of hospitality such as hospitality networks evolve through social media and, at the same time, manifest themselves in classical face-to-face interaction; urban space can be experienced through collective digital memory, e.g., in blogs like Clio, Spotted by Locals, etc. These forms of togetherness are not only “virtual communities;” they simultaneously materialize into collective experience in urban space. Urban and digital spaces are no longer separate but intertwined in a way that remains poorly understood. For example, digital infrastructures such as mobile phone towers are situated in urban space while this same space becomes digitalized (e.g., Smart City).
The graduate school ‘Loose Couplings’ investigates how new hybrid spaces are set up through the mutual structuring and partial merging of urban and digital spaces and how this intertwining affects the emergence of collectivity. Each form of togetherness has a spatial dimension. This is true of classic collectivity such as the nation-state defined by territory, but also of collectivity developing in digital spaces, for instance, the web platform Second Life or other anonymous chat rooms and gaming forums. These spaces have mostly been understood as parallel and independent from each other. As a result, different disciplines have treated them as discrete subjects. The social sciences, for example, have focused on territories or urban spheres, whereas media studies have concentrated on cyberspace or virtual worlds. In the past years, however, it has become increasingly difficult to draw a clear distinction between these spaces. Digital togetherness is by no means restricted to the digital realm, but keeps finding new forms of expression through public urban gatherings such as the Anonymous protests. At the same time, the urban sphere is being increasingly digitalized by location-based media and the omnipresence of smartphones. This allows for spontaneous modes of organization which also bring strangers together (e.g., decentralized protests as well as microcollective action movements or Couchsurfing hosting communities). People meet online and on location at the same time. This phenomenon is emblematic of the mutual penetration of urban and digital spaces. We presume it has changed the conditions for producing countless forms of collectivity. Our assessment, however, does not involve a spatially-determined or technically-determined assumption. Spaces, whether urban or digital, are not simply given, but rather acquired and thereby shaped socially. We are thus focusing particularly on the interaction between urban/digital spheres and the formation of collectivity.
To us, collectivity constitutes the various forms of gathering and connecting of heterogeneous social, human, and nonhuman elements which experience themselves as functioning units or are perceived as such from the outside (in accordance with Latour 2010; Kneer/Schroer/Schüttpelz 2008 and assemblage theories: De Landa 2011; Bennett 2010). Their purposefulness distinguishes them from the mere flow of an anonymous crowd. This purpose may be expressed in self-descriptions but may also be latent in experiences of unity and the mutual affection of bodies. With recourse to William James, experience is not to be understood as a “subjective experience” in psychological terms, but rather as located before the very division into subject and object. Experience derives directly from social relations. (Stoller et al. 2005; Latour 2013). Experience is not conceived as a passive sensualistic operation, as the place where reality is constituted in processes of mutual interaction. (Rammert 1999). Yet the purposefulness of collectivity generated by shared experience is not automatically of a political nature. It remains to be examined if and how this experience-based capacity for action becomes political and if the urban and digital collectives that form the key focus of our interest exhibit any new forms of political action. They become political by addressing their claims or their mere capacity for self-organization to an audience.
We assume—and this assumption needs to be verified in empirical projects—that it is precisely the intertwining of urban and digital spaces that facilitates collective action among strangers (aka “loose connections”), as well as new forms of taking action. Our research training group analyzes types of collectivity that cannot tap into good and long established networks. The central question is how loosely connected, heterogeneous elements grow into a powerful unit. These collectivities neither grow from shared ideology, regardless of any ideologies they may give rise to, nor do they build on preexisting common interests. In contrast to classic conceptions of networks, we focus less on nodes of activity and more on mutable connections and their medial and urban conditions (Thacker, 2009). The collectivities thus addressed emerge for short periods and specific occasions only and are likely to dissolve as fast as they arise. Hence, they can neither be categorized as tried-and-tested “tight connections” such as class or gender identities, nor do they rest upon fixed interests or common histories. But what, despite these difficult conditions, enables collectivities to generate potentially new forms of unity and capacity for action?
Such types of collectivity cannot be understood simply as deficient forms of identity—the Occupy movement, for instance, has been accused of failing to produce a consistent self-description—but must be assessed empirically and theoretically in their own positivity. The research training group aims to investigate these forms of collectivity in different social and cultural settings using a comparative approach. We have a systematic interest in the following four aspects, which will constitute the modules of the research training group: Urban/Digital Spaces of Collectivity (module 1), The Experience and Dynamics of Collectivity (module 2); Tactics and Strategies of Collectivity (module 3); Genealogy and Theories of Collectivity (module 4) The research training group is devising an interdisciplinary perspective by drawing upon sociology, media and cultural science, and urbanistic positions.
Being situated in greater Hamburg is a great advantage. It enables us to observe numerous key phenomena locally: various forms of political protest, swarm solidarity (e.g., support networks for Lampedusa refugees), new guest and care collectives among foreigners, and artistic reflections such as dance performances which emulate swarm thinking. As a media stronghold, Hamburg is an especially promising place to analyze “loosely connected” collectivity in classical mass media and social media (e.g., the European center of the host network Airbnb) as well as to assess the digitilization of the city (e.g., smartPORT). At the scientific level, the research training group is linking up Universität Hamburg (sociology, media studies, performance studies), the HafenCity University Hamburg (cultural anthropology/urban sociology), the University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (microsociology), the Hamburg Institute for Social Research (political and historical sociology), and Leuphana University of Lüneburg (media studies).