The results of a group work project where the olympic charter was used to fulfill identity stereotypes.
A mere 7.5 days to go until the end of the postgraduate session here at the International Olympic Academy. As we approach the home straight, a week of philosophy and ethical debate, we (the participants) are afforded the opportunity to to reflect on your experiences and our (now-'informed') interpretations of olympism and the olympic charter. Which is great if you found yourself travelling towards a direction that approves of the benefits of olympic education and the likes.
For me, what little support I had for olympic education is on critical low levels - where at the start of my PhD I was indifferent about the olympic movement - it was something that people who liked sport enjoyed. Later, after reading the key literature about the olympic movement and the media, I was surprised by how huge an event this was and the lack of interest in studying/discussing the media in this space - so found media technology to be my focus on research (hence the topic of my paper I submitted of the IOA) - and, importantly, that you could study the Olympic Games without touching the sport *at all*. Which is good - considering the amount of hoops that you have to jump through just to be exposed to it (think the olympic tickets lottery in London for instance - I didn't get any, which could have been problematic if I was to focus my PhD on the access to a type of sport.)
So I thought new media and technology would be my *safe space* - that is, I use the Olympic games as a lens to access/understand the fast paced changes to media technology - as the Olympics happened every 2 years, you can use set timeframes to describe what happened then and during the event - rather than attempting to grab a moving target.
But the thing is with new media is that it exposes you to alternative ideas, narratives, the fringes of discussions to the dominant, mainstream media narratives that have made it all to easy in the past to focus on key ideas that have framed the modern olympic games since the beginning (the charter for one) and consistant focus on sport - as if it is a non-political entity, free from critical engagement. I could not help but be affected by the 'other side' of the olympics that I was uncovering - if I was to ignore them, then I would be actively ignoring a huge and gaping hole in my research. I mean I *could* just study how the IOC are now using twitter - but that again would support the under-criticised power of the IOC and their ability to fold subversion back into the system.
Two years of working in this space has *changed* the way I think and how I consider myself in society - by un-picking the Olympics, something that I was previously not bothered by (or could understand the extent of the impact it has on communities, countries and internationally), has let to unpicking other things (such as education and politics) - as if I can finally find the words to express the "whys" of how I am feeling much clearer and with more social and political context. This is the path I have found myself on - and now I find it hard to just accept what I am being told. So to be told that universal Olympic education is a thing that we should be working together in achieving - all I can ask is "Why?"
Now - this isn't me saying "no, this is wrong." this is me asking about the assumed status of those within the room. From what I gather, there are three things that are being assumed on our behalf when we are receiving our lectures from the visiting professors:
1) That we all think that sport is a morally good thing. That is bonds us across communities and it should be considered as something as powerful as saying it is a 'human right'. The act of sport is a human right.
2) That we see the idea of Olympic education as being a force to carry the message of sport and to help build an understanding that sport is a human right. All people of the world should hear this message and the best way to do this is through education.
3) That through participating in an olympic education program, we are are all advocates for the olympic education movement and will return to our country to spread the universal messages of Olympism. This is why we are here.
If I was going to be skeptical about this, I would say that, yes, this is the truth and I would write off what is being said on the basis that I have found myself at some missionary religious sect and my criticism/questions is the same as walking into a church and telling them that their god doesn't exist. I'm not going to do that - because I do not believe that this space is simply a space of indoctrination.
Last week for instance, I found a friend (and an allie) in one of the visiting professors who, despite being 'pro-olympics' was anti-olympic education (at least in current guise). And that is a crude binary that we are working on - in many ways, I could be considered pro-olympics (those from the Vancouver Media Coop - through me working with cultural olympiad projects - certainly thought so), but I would like to think that it is more complex than that - which is why I will not write off the IOA as borderline cult phenomena. If it was, I would not be here - unless I am only here to be bullied into submission through living with, socialising with and studying with olympic peers. On the bad days, the days when I miss having my support around me, I certain feel that way.
But I have to remember this is a controlled environment - and probably the closest I've ever gotten to the boarding school experience. Despite ages ranging from 22-40, and the insistance that we are called 'participants' - not students - and we collectively refer to the teachers as "professors" - there is definitely power relationships that I have not felt since the days of walking out of english class aged 16 and never going back. We are here to be learned something - that's why 80 percent of the lectures are the powerpoint version of 60 mins of chalk-and-talk followed by a strict 15 minutes for questions (apparently to get us used to international conferences - ha!) - we are told what we should be thinking about topics such as multiculturalism - not being asked to discuss it. In the exercises that do involve student participation - we are separated into groups in order to find common ground about topics such as the olympic charter - an appropriate way to facilitate group discussion so the key learning outcomes are addressed in a timely fashion.
Perhaps I would expect this in an undergraduate seminar (which I'm beginning to disagree with now I am back in the classroom as a student, rather than a teacher) but as a roomful of graduate students, it boggles my mind that some of the ideas are so blindly accepted. Of course, if there is only one, now pretty unpopular, person vocalising questions (I emphasis questions, not opinion - I don't think I have actually told anyone what I *really* think of the games since I've got here - only asked questions) then I can see why it is not appealing to break out from the community. 30 days is a long time to be away from home - especially when you are not only studying/debating with people, but you are living with them. If this was a conference, I would probably not sacrifice so much of myself for the subject area (both in class - and online, where I feel that the only place I can talk about it is on twitter - despite being entirely public and the easiest platform to be taken out of context.)
But really? This is about me being wrong - being told that my attitude to the materials is incorrect, that my 'limited' view point on the world is restricting my understanding of the wider picture, that I simply don't get the importance of sport in the context of global solidarity. You are right. I am wrong. I want to be wrong. I want to be wrong about neo-liberal assault on the values we hold so dear to us. Wrong about how corporations use such an idealistic philosophy to peddle exploitation on behalf of their own profit. I want to be wrong about education being nothing more than a training ground for the labour market. I want to be wrong that governments are using things the olympics to push other agendas to the global stage, something that is more important than looking after their citizens. Being wrong is ok.
I've not been having such a great time at Olympic school. This week should have really been my week - the topic of this week's lectures are on the social, political and economic factors of the modern Olympic Games - and it is *technically* where my PhD topic should fit on the program. It is day 4. On the first day, I asked too many questions. On the second, I asked too many questions and when I got asked to stop asking questions (or shusht! the technical term), I was approached in such a way that suggested a telling off, a request to stop asking questions that were not relevant or logical to the discussion. So yesterday I sat out of the learning so not to disrupt the group's overall experience. I felt I had to. Anyway, the easiest way to understand what happened is to equate it to being a 'cultural thing' - my expectations didn't match the professors expectations didn't match the other student's expectations. And if that was true, it means it is probably down to me being Scottish.
It didn't make make be feel too great. In fact, it totally sucked. I'm taken back to secondary school and my schizophrenic report card - where I would receive referrals and detentions in the same weeks are winning an award for academic excellence at the school's prize giving. It is my contradiction, I live with the fuck ups - of which there have been many - and there will be many more, I'm sure.
I'm not going to talk about me (yet), I'm going to talk the reactions that I received from the rest of the group. The group. I've referred to the rest of the participants at the academy as 'the group' already. The group is an interesting concept - as if we all move together, as one - believing roughly the same ideas and having a similar general overview of the world. Brought together, internationally, to because of our love and/or research into the Olympic Games. We share the values of tolerance, respect and solidarity that are the foundations of the Olympic movement - and we reflect this in how we behave and act towards each other, regardless of our cultural backgrounds. This is easy to prescribe with words, but as a group (a singular entity) it is much harder in practice. Of course it is - to not address the complexities in how individual's form bonds that transcend institutionalised practice and concepts is madness. At least for me. Is that me failing to be tolerant?
If I was to be rationalise the dynamics of the group (something I've been encouraged to do this week when talking about other circumstances related to the Olympic Games and its indirect effects that it has on society, politics and culture - human emotion is a *bad* thing and not a factor in research) then I would consider it as followed. Each of us has been selected and nominated to attend through national committees within our country. Each of us, directly or indirectly, is encouraged to represent our country - some have tracksuits with our country emblem on them (including me!), some are athletes (so are down with the competitive national sport element), some have brought their own materials that identify their nation state in a way that can be translated easily to other participants through the process of cultural evening - an example of this would be for me to represent Scotland with a picture of a kilt ("lol - he has no pants") and convincing others that a haggis was a real animal (#haggislols) - all cultural devices that are easy to understand because they are dominant ideas that have been translated globally. Together, we are brought together as a group, specifically known as the 18th IOA postgraduate seminar participants/alumni, identified by our bright blue lanyard and our red baseball caps - the only thing that we can say that we have in common is our attendance here in Greece, everything else (the tolerance, respect and solidarity) was decided before we got here, before we were all born.
We are encouraged to learn about other cultures through spending time with each other. This is slightly different than building relationships based on trust, this is building relationships based on shared experiences. There are some experiences which equate to making sure that the experience that you have at the IOA is the experience that you are suppose to have. Play sports, hang out by the pool, visit the beach, run naked at the ancient Olympia stadium. It is what you are expected to do together as part of a collective group experience.
If the idea fills you with dread, it could be seen as a problem in a context of a group rather than simply wanting to opt out of the activity. For instance, friends that know you well enough can read when you are upset, worried, angry, happy, calm and don't require as much signal as people you've only just met. This takes time and personal understanding of a person to get to this stage of subtly. As we are living closely together here, it is expected to form bonds as quick as you can, with many different people - so national and cultural stereotypes can play a big part in accelerating relationships because there are lightweight enough to understand across a group, not as much work as getting to know somebody individually. Much like who you sit with at the first day of school has a major influence in how you behave, who you get to know through interacting, bonding and learning from your peers. The coincidence of knowing each other is through a shared locale - not necessary through shared interest, complementary personalities etc that we tend to find when we least expect it (this has been accelerated because of the Internet of course!)
What I am truly missing here is the opportunity to be myself. Not a PhD student, not a representation of the UK, not part of the 18th IOA PG seminar group, not somebody who seems to be working all the time, not a person who is allergic to mosquitos so therefore doesn't want to go swimming, not a person who asks questions in class that are not relevant to discussions - all devices that I can use to publicly identify myself within the group, but it's not really me. It is a performance of me. A performance of me that gives me something to say and a way to behave within a group - but as I've had limited space to really get to know people beyond their own performance, it is not a performance at all. I'd rather not have to perform at all. This is not possible, of course, but I have to keep myself safe when I know that most interactions are going to be with more than one person with not enough context to spread around.
So, to simply say that it is a cultural thing that causes the similarities and differences in approach is problematic. We could make it a cultural thing - we could make it an excuse for the reasons behind dissent individual behaviour in a group setting - but this group is situated in a context of a Western ideal. The Olympics, born in Europe, steeped in the notion of empire, power, development, growth in GDP, neoliberalism, sport as a human right, capitalist rhetoric - if any culture was going to reflect the Olympic games through stereotypes alone, I'm sure Great Britain would be close to the top of the list. Culturally, I should be the embodiment of such principles. In reality - I am struggling with the notion of alternatives and rethinking about such ideology that we take for granted and allow to haunt our necessarily lives I can't embody my 'alternative vision' neither - nor force my way of thinking onto the rest of the group because I don't even know if there is a correct and complete answer to be forced. Instead, I ask questions in order to reveal something more about ideas presented some confidently as being a correct one. And such questioning creates tensions - tensions so apparent that they are equated to inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour. Where appropriate and acceptable is not dictated by some higher being or institution, but by each other.
But saying that, today is day 4. And day 4 was ok. It was the first lecture we've had that was not a lecture. It was a conversation. And I'm glad I decided to make myself go. We were asked to write down what we though where the three most pivotal games in history and to share them (and our reasons for choosing them) with the class. I picked 1968, 1972 and 1984. Some were looking for the right answer, so therefore a measure of being the 'best' games - when really, the exercise had no correct response at all. The professor argued that all of the games were capable of being pivotal, due to the nature of their global response - and our selections and reasons were all a reflection on how we thought about the world. This wasn't a 'cultural thing' at all, this was just better, more engaging teaching - and a chance to break down some of those stereotypes that we've let ourselves inflict on each other. I've been looking for more chances to support the Olympics/megaevents as a context to see the world, or a catalyst for doing something else - and this is the first time I've found it at the academy. Amongst the indoctrination and the desire for the easy, most accessible group answer, there is small pockets were the dominant ideas (and excuses for difference) don't necessarily prevail.
The above passage is an extract from Helen Lenskyj's excellent book "Resisting the Olympic Industry" which I finished a few months ago. Please read it - and I'll elaborate why I've chosen to share it below.
Lenskyj (2008) is a rare - but prominent critical voice of the Olympics. Both activist and academic, she can be seen talking (amongst others) about the Vancouver Games on the Five Ring Circus documentary (available for free here) and has wrote several books about the notion of the Olympic industry (not movement), its politics, activism and social movements of resistance that arise against olympic bids, candidature cities and the host cities.
This particular paragraph stood out for me when I first read it back in June. It was contained within the introductionary section, that detailed the political and personal reasons for writing the book - the relationship between activism and academia and the numberous issues with the media and academic research conducted in the field of 'Olympic studies.' I return to this paragraph - because although I couldn't/didn't want to image it ever happening to me (despite attending some pretty dodgy conferences) - I couldn't believe today that I quite blantently had everyone of my questions sideswipped during today's lectures on the 'bidding process' and the legacy for london 2012.
The above happened during session that was presented as a 'talking shop' with an invitation to stop the speaker whenever we had a question or a point to make. The first question I asked was in response to the definiton of legacy presented by the DCMS in 2008. It was clear once my response was avoided - and treated as if I had made a 'wrong' answer - that the government/LOCOG position was the 'correct' and 'factual' answer. The second question was the use of "we" when describing the need for government endorced 'social change' - I asked who the 'we' were - and the response was 'we, the people of the world' - which after a skeptic 'hmm' got reduced to 'the people in power' - and then a diatribe about the role of UK academics in the legacy discussion - that pulled me back into the fold as being part of the 'we'. The third point - and the point that caused me to walk out of the lecture was when, after being shown a picture of the crowd after London won the games on the 6th July 2005 - the declaration that the 7th of July 2005 was a great day for sports decisions. Dare I mention 7/7? Was that too political. Yes, I did, because it was an international audience and it was an important social context not to miss out - which wasn't considered appropriate for this talking shop and was met with a 'shush.'
Lovely.
Anyway. I'm really starting to feel like I'm part of the club now.
Lenskyj, H. (2008) Olympic Industry Resistance: Challenging Olympic Power and Propaganda. SUNY Press: New York.
Ancient Olympia is a small town about a mile from the Olympic Academy. It is known for its archeological site of the ancient olympics from around 700BC - as well as some museums containing artifacts and statues found around the area. As it has close associations with the cultural/historical/spiritual identity of modern Greece - and the obvious connections with the Olympic Games (it is where they began to light the flame for the torch relay which began in 1936 - the year of the Berlin Games), Olympia is a bone fide tourist trap - popular to tour groups from cruise ships and those who are travelling around mainland Greece to see the sites of various digs.
During the preparations for the 2004 games in Athens, some investment was put into the town, which is about 4-5 hours away by car from the capital city, so that some events could be hosted in the original stadium. Therefore, Olympia is 'clean', but sterile compared to other towns near by, and is littered with gift shops, english-speaking bars and restaurants and friendly, enthusiastic shopkeepers.
As I've been sick for the last few days (nasty spider bite, anti-biotics, rubbish in the heat) and not well enough to spend a day at the beach (it's a great excuse really!) I've had taken the chance to visit the town today. I walked in early with the wife of the professor who arrived from the US last night to have a wander, see what I was missing and have a coffee together.
For every shop that we stopped to browse, we were encountered by friendly owners who would use the identical format of "the price? I have a nice price for you. X EUR, for you? X-20% EUR." There were often links to the Olympics "You from the academy?" [noticing my lanyard] "Come and see my signed book /postcard /photograph/torch from the moscow olympics" followed by pulling me into the shop to cover my arm in various jewellery. It was cute - and I did end up buying a silver owl charm for my necklace that I *hope* doesn't turn green because I actually quite like it.
We got chatting to some local vendors, one couple where one of them was originally from the states and had lived in Greece for 15 years and got onto the topic of tourists. I'm meta like that. She told us about the decline in footfall, despite the increase in traffic and visitors since the Athens Games. She said that it is getting so bad, that she can tell through how little she finds herself speaking in English - even when she was writing down some information of a local homemade cure for my spider-bite, she had forgotten how to write in english briefly. People were just not coming through the town.
What was happening was that instead of dropping off bus tour groups in a certain place and allowing them to wander around for several hours on their own, they were being driven to 'safe spots' - places where they were be herded around tourist area by a guide, shown group-endorsed restaurants and shops and moved from location to location with little time to explore places on their own. This happened to us on the first few days of travelling to Olympia, we were taken to specifically arrange restaurants (which had a set menu of MEAT and FRIES on both occasions) - obviously some of this is for ease and organisation - but there is also an element of micro-economy at play.
For each participant on the trip that eats at that restaurant, the tour organiser gets 5EUR. For every purchase in the endorsed shop, they get a cut between 10-20 percent - as well as an instant kickback of 30EUR per party. There are also techniques being used to prevent business going else where - tour guides getting a bung to say that there are only certain places that are worth purchasing from, that some goods are rubbish (tbf, it is hard to find a 'tasteful' greek souvenir that hasn't been made in china) - and even the bus drivers are demanding payment for 'extra' services such as answering questions about services and the sites. All with the ignorant blessing of those who are visiting "authentic" Greece on holiday.
I'm sure this has/is happening everywhere - and I hadn't really thought about it before. I wouldn't dare consider a holiday of that nature - it's just not for me. It is restrictive in nature - and I ask too many questions in my head to settle on just *one* way of looking at the world. Plus I would probably go awol shortly after the first few nights.
When I got back from Olympia, I had lunch with the professor and some of the students who, like me, decided against the beach. One is from Guatemala - and is presenting on the steps that his country is taking to prepare for a bid for the Olympic Games. I quite cheekily said that they were be much better without the Games (read "Five Ring Circus" by Chris Shaw - on the NO Games movement in Vancouver)- and we a discussion about the IOC's remit for giving the Games to 'rich countries' and that for a smaller south american country to get it would be seen as a big deal in terms of putting them on the world stage.
This is problematic for me - as the IOC are a non-democratic organisation that can enforce an enormous amount of pain on a country's people directly and indirectly for at least 7 years - when budgets are redirected from public and social services such as health and education (witness what is happening the UK, the NHS is in grave danger of being privatised - and DON'T get me started on education) yet London 2012 is treated very much as a sacred cow, it does not even make sense if we are to believe and accept the austerity rhetoric being imposed by the government. What it does do, however, it creates - or in the case of London, reaffirms a well known "safe" spot for people to visit as part of an shared experience. In the same light why people visit Starbucks - or eat mcdonalds when they are abroad because they don't want to 'risk' eating the local cusine, it is about having your expectations matched, no matter where you are - and staying within a accepted comfort zone.
The Olympics generate huge narratives about a country - attracting people to that country now that it has been considered a 'safe' space. For instance, being here - amongst 35 people from all round the world, it is strange to observe what transcends cultural boundaries - or more critical - what is the product of hyper-globalisation? I *could* hold a evening of cultural activities showcasing some of the more alternative aspects to the 'UK culture' (or even highlight different cities, different cultures, different musics, different foods, different accents - whatever, so much fascinates me) - but what people really want is something they know and understand within their own limitations and expectations - so it is much easier for me to step down the old braveheart route, bang on the proclaimers and cringe my way into oblivion. If I didn't want to do that, I could draw on images of red buses, taxi cabs, the royal family - and all that awful shit that people want to see when they think of london. It is comfortable - it is concise - it helps 'bond' international relations - but it is a load of shite and I feel like a fraud when I even bring it up, like I'm abusing something to personally fit in for a night or so.
So - when I think of Olympia and it's tourist micro-economy - and I think of the people who are suffering from the cuts to their public services through enforced measures from the IMF and the Greek government. When I think about the 'safe' spaces and the 'safe' ideas of cultural identity - where it is considered appropriate (and entrepreneurial) to take a bus 400 metres rather than encourage people to make their own decisions about the (already sterilised) area, forcing the locals who (for whatever reason) want to opt out of the emerging system that appears to have grown as part of the legacy of the Athens Games, I can start to see the tangle of context that I need to articulate in my thesis when I am to speak about dominant narratives and dominant ideas of place.
The International Olympic Academy, Y U NO DO IT RIGHT?
On the day of the opening ceremony for the summer school that I am attending in Olympia, we were greeted by a professional photographer as we entered building that contained the lecture hall. Thinking nothing of it, as if it was obvious that the person was there to serve some PR remit for the academy, I awkwardly hid my face and stood in the background, avoiding any permanent record of anybody seeing me in a dress.
He followed us through the process, through the opening speech from the school's dean, through the 'olympic anthem' (for which we all had to stand through) and to the outdoor ceremony were wreaths were laid on the memorial on the person who established the modern olympic games, pierre de Coubertin.
He followed us to the lecture theatre, taking pictures of people looking studious, like what we are suppose to look like when we are being delivered a class on ancient greek mythology - he followed us to the ruins of ancient olympia, snapping as we watched on as our guide explain the origins of the olympic torch. He joined us when we walked alone around the site, taking our own pictures - and joined us as we walked back to the campus, snapping as he went.
Of course, this was before I found out that he would be selling these images back to us for 2EUR a time. And that they were available to anybody on the campus to buy (there are several groups here.) There were candid shots of individuals, of couples, of groups - but all remained his unless we coughed up for the individual print. I'm certainly not going to buy mine, so I do wonder what he will do with my face in the meantime (shred it possibly)
But of course, this has not been new to me on the trip. I've had my photograph taken, some deliberately, some by accident, multiple times since I have arrived. I've been snapped in the background, whilst I wasn't looking, on video, tagged on facebook, shared across multiple platforms - and whilst I am usually ok with it, I'm wondering about the spectacle of being here may outweight the real value of the educational benefits.
It wasn't until I noticed that there were some taking their own photographs of them studying in the library did I click on the spectacle in such microforms - a meta spectacle in a school designed around a mega spectacle. I am used to citizen reporting, to amping my shit, to writing every monotonous thought down on the internet, but for some reason I am uncomfortable with some of the capturing.
For instance, I attended a cultural night this evening (briefly) where I was subjected to the ceremonial reading of a wikipedia entry, a collection of upbeat youtube videos on the egyptian revolution (with some romantic background music) followed by a quiz on the facts about the arab spring. I know I should be lighter of heart with this stuff, as it is a chance for people to show of their culture that they are so obviously proud of - but at the same time, I was curious (and worried) by the enforcement of national stereotypes and group pressure to conform. And being seen to support, reaffirm an attempt to clarify a 'global' 'safe' 'fun' position on such an idea.
This has been reinforced through a somewhat crash course in the classics, after a week of working with professors from the university of california and some of their graduate students. Everything we are lectured on in class is about the (mis)interpretation of history and evidence, about power and control and about the use of the spectacle. It has been enlightening as I could never image even a few years ago being able to take on a subject of this nature and find myself relating to some of the key concepts. Of course, it is hard work as an english native, so I can't image what it must feel like for those who speak english as a second language - or are not PhD students but work in the sports industry, nevertheless, I am intrigued by watching how people act in the class (especially with the use of the camera - and the reaction to some of the questions I've asked in typical, final year grad student stylee) and the emphasis on the performance of national identities.
I'm guilty of it sometimes. We all are. It is easier to slip into a role of being the Scot "hullo hen"than it is to constantly explaining your critical position on the Olympics - to those who wish to only hear ideas that they can use to help their country win more medals. And that is why it is probably easier to treat this space as a space to meet other people and to take time out from work.
The eye opener for me is that the academic work is taking the backseat over the spectacle - I mean, I've had an insane amount of media coverage for my university because the press release had 'olympics' in the title. I've done/wrote greater things in my short time in academia than the paper I wrote for this seminar (which I will be re-writing for my presentation next week - needs more critique now I've through the doors) that does not translate in the way that olympic research can achieve - and although I appear grumpy or negative or challenging through my tweets, I am actually incredibly grateful to be afforded the opportunity to spend time with senior researchers (which I've grabbed by the horns, despite being ill for the last 3 days.) I can also see where my work compares on the spectrum - and I've definitely found myself becoming more confident to speak out about the things that I am interested about and to form useful and challenging questions.
I have not, however, taken any pictures of speakers, or of others working. Perhaps I might have done if I was at a conference - or if I was 'liveblogging' something. I've not felt like I've needed to - and as if at previous events, I found myself slipping into that role to avoid some of the tougher circumstances/challenges that come with academic research/career. This has been a big thing for me - to move from going through the motions of something because it feels like the right thing to do -like when you go to a museum to look at things, but dont really pay attention to what those things are, you go to so you can say you've been to the museum - to actually really learning something, where you can engage with the materials to the point where you can take them on in your own way and in your own explanations.
It's like a move from the spectacle of learning to the experience of learning. I don't need to spend 2EUR on a picture of me listening to a lecture, when I actually feel like I've learnt a great deal just for simply being here, listening and asking questions & rolling with whatever is put in front of me. This is quite a nice development.
After attending and take part in last year's skyride in Leicester as a media volunteer for Citizen's Eye community media hube, I decided to come back as a cyclist this year.
Unfortunately - thanks to East Midlands Trains deciding to put on a bus replacement service between Loughborough and Leicester, this wasn't meant to be - you aren't suppose to take a bike on the train without booking it (which is frustrating for a 10 minute journey at the best of time) and bikes not allowed on the bus, I had to leave mine at home, get the bus and contribute to the traffic on the road instead (boo!)
Nevertheless, I get to be a media volunteer again and help man the fort at the Phoenix Square where a media centre has been set up by citizen's eye which aims to cover stories that the official sponsors, Sky, won't.
For more context about what the media centre does, check out the post I wrote last year, where it was the first of its kind for Citizen's Eye - and all part of an experiment towards the London 2012 Olympic Games in running an independent media centre for two weeks during the games and as part of #media2012 - a national network of citizen journalists that I am helping to coordinate as part of my PhD.
What's different from last year?
Logistics
Apart from the awesome new Ride Leicester volunteer t-shirts, speaking to John Coster (the editor of Citizen's Eye) and the volunteers who were here last year, the coordination between official event organisers and the media reporters has been practically seamless. Last year, it was all a bit experimental, what with the last minute change of route to go through the (at the time) under-used cultural quarter and past the Phoenix, nobody expected the amount of people to come through the doors of the centre. Logistically, this year they are much more prepared, with extra staff, food stalls outside and offering an event menu for people taking part - which has helped maintain a calmer atmosphere in the space (and definetely good for the Phoenix) - and something to consider next year for those who are taking part in a #media2012 event in a space with an 'official' event happening in the background.
Producing Media
Like last year, has been lots of meetings of volunteers ahead of this year's skyride during the community media cafe that Citizen's Eye runs on a Tuesday. This year, they've had the benefit of hindsight - where they have made the decision not upload everything that has been taken, but instead to select and edit the best of the content which has made everyone feel a lot more calmer and not as pressured to find a wifi connection or be chained to their computer for the entire day. Also, some of the volunteers have decided not to cycle so they can focus on capturing quality content, not just the most content.
Raising awareness for Citizen's Eye, Community Media Week/Centre and #media2012
I've spent a lot of time just promoting citizen's eye and #media2012 and explaining *exactly* what community media is to the people who have came over to ask what we are doing. Doing this has been really interesting in itself, because I don't think I've ever been in a position where I've just chatted to 'the public' (I'm careful to use that expression) about the stuff that I normally leave for the internet or for academia or for those who are already part of the thing. It's funny when somebody asked me "what do you get out of doing this?" - as in, how do you know if it was a success, but actually, there could be two of us here and it would still be a fun and productive way to spend a Sunday afternoon.
Gold Medals
Just lying around...
I think there is loads to be learned from activities like this - and it is nice to be part of something that relys on people power to *do* stuff- not the corperate sponsors. I'm hoping that *next* year I will finally get to do the ride, even if it means bringing my bike down the night before and camping out.
[Disclaimers: These are the work-in-process notes that I've prepared for a *five-to-seven* minute stint as part of a live-recording of Pod Delusion at Leicester's Skeptic in the Pub meet last Tuesday (16th August, 2011). In their own words The Pod Delusion "is a weekly news magazine podcast about interesting things. From politics, to science to culture and philosophy, it's commentary from a secular, rationalist, skeptical, somewhat lefty-liberal, sort of perspective." I probably won't use this all - and I don't want to constantly repeat myself and I what I *really* want to talk about is what the third university is planning come the revolution *cough* 9th of November.]
Yesterday, the UK's longest running student occupation in recent history, Glasgow's Free Hetherington, declared victory as their occupation of the ex-postgraduate club of Glasgow University, comes to an end. Those involved in the 6 month protest against the Principal's plans for cuts, compulsory redundancies and the closure of courses and departments at the University, managed to exert pressure to get the institution's management to reconsider their decision and agree to halt such proceedings. The full details of which are still being negotiated (in detail) between the students and those in charge. This is an important, but under-reported development of the student movement against the future self-destruction of the higher education system - as we know it.
In the shadow of last week's troubles, where the tories confusingly called for the 'education' of young people, but in the same breath supporting the rise in tuition fees and limiting access to post-16 institutions, we have to take a moment to understand what we mean when we are talking about eduation, indeed the purpose of a University come the illustrious 2012/2013 9k term. The focus on employability and the need for 'employability skills' (such as the ability for me to teach my students to have 'self-belief', networking skills and 'creativity' if I want to keep a position in the UK higher education sector) has been increased since the publication of the Browne Review in October 2010, where the relationship between increased undergraduate fees and future income were explicitly linked for the first time (Browne Report, 2010: 35). The expectations of future acceptors, who once used to choose a university based on the love of a subject area or the quality of the course content, may instead only seek to attend universities that can guaranteed successful career prospects (BCU Acceptance Survey, 2009) Can you blame them - when the average debt predicted for the first 9k cohorters is set to average of £60,000 - the pressure to earn and 'pay back' that cost, as well as maintain an appropriate standard of living, becomes forefronted as a priority. Essentially, the government is contributing a new set of educational tools for society; a pedagogy of debt.
Come September this year, we are looking at the last generation of students to enter the university system at the current cost of £3920+ a year. In three years time, when those students graduate, the system will be supported by the new collatoral of the accepting, ever obdient 27k 18-21 year old at its heart. What we know of the education that we enjoyed, albeit at a cost beyond what the majority of those in power experienced, will have been wiped out in favour of Lord Browne's decisions. The collective memory and the collective purpose of the university can be wiped as quickly as the effects of a riot on the anger of the phone hacking scandal - it is almost as if the school terms are designed in such a way to neutralise radicalism before action can take hold and spread. Already, we are being to see the shutters come down on the next generation of students and with cuts to research funding - the next generation of PhD students and therefore, the next generation of critical thinkers who could pose a challenge and alternative to those in positions of power. What are the alternatives for those brought up to believe that the only route after complusary education is one of the University?
Interesting things started to happen after the Browne review decision last winter. There was resistance and there were protests - and it was the a-typical, until then generically posed as a-political student cohort. They were the first to act. We watched, as police kettled young people in the cold of November, as they protested for the future of education, knowing that most of them would have graduated beyond that system by the time changes were implimented. At the same time, over 30 universities across the UK went into occupation, reclaiming spaces within the university campus and using for places of learning. Out of the student occupations, many groups and collectives began to form in order to challenge, question and reimagine what a university might look like. Some examples include Leed's "Really Open University", the University of Utopia and the University of Strategic Optimism. Other happenings saw groups running learning spaces, where individuals could volunteer and contribute skills and sessions where others could take part and learn from each other. These include the "Really Free School" in London, the Glasgow Open School, the Free University of Liverpool and the Third University here in Leicester. Some, such as the Social Science Centre in Lincoln, are taking on the responsibility to run an organisation that will offer the equivelent of degrees to participants, working as a cooperative to create a geniunely workable and sustainable alternative to a degree paid for by debt. However, this list of places is not limited, where I find that the more I speak and write about these occurances, the more I find out other projects and similar acts of community-led education systems. These are reasons to be excited, in a world where you can't predict the social, political - and dare I say, economical impact of what the government's austerity measures may have on us in the coming weeks, months and years. For me, the glimmer of hope that these spaces and the people I've met through my very quick introduction to radical politics and media, has been a power antidote to the neo-liberal rhetoric of the mainstream and dominant narratives of 2011.
So what can be done in Leicester? I've already mentioned the Third University, content on being Leicester's 3rd best, which was set up on the day of the first set of UCU (Univesities and College Union) strikes back in March. Like many good idea, it was dreamt up in a boozer, after many discussions about what the strikes could do and what they represented in terms of the larger picture of resistance against changes to education. We asked ourself what it meant to defend a building and if there was indeed, uncontested space in which these critical ideas of what a university means could be discussed. Through the process of several 'happenings' (because we can't/won't call them meetings or committees) we discovered that, actually, the third university was an idea to learn things from each other (especially people who are passionate about their favourite things) and to help provide space in order to do that. It doesn't have a set of demands, but it does have a customer charter, it doesn't have a governance structure, but it does want you to get involved in anyway you feel that you can.
So as I conclude, I think about what will happen come September as the students begin again and what can be done to share stories, knowledge and keep the history and understanding of what happened last year alive whilst the system attempted to neutralise it. The battle of ideas - and the battle of knowledge and understanding are key here. These stories of action - especially when they result in positive outcomes, when the media prefer to report on their own agendas- are worthy of being heard and being shared. For me, I see the links between alternative media, citizen reporting and viable alternatives to the corperate and business-like approaches that is being to dominate educational mission statements. It is important that not only are these alternative heard about, they are also shared, passed on and encouraged to grow for as long as they are required. As we have seen from the Free Hetherington, it is possible to make a stand and to make a change against what is happening - and although we cannot predict what will happen in response to the promised demands, we know that there are people out there who are commited to re/defend our education system and those of us who are in, against and beyond the university as it stands.
The third university is working closely with Leicester's community media network Citizen Eye, running sessions alongside other events and workshops. We will be running a week of activities/lessons and things during community media week in November, a week leading up to the 9th of November national demonstration in London.
Over the past 2 years, I've managed to get away with spending quite a lot of time working on my PhD from home. It is quite possible to access the bulk of the literature that you need from your library's subscription service, google books and asking people you know to share subscriptions if they are not available. There are times though when I do still need to go to the library - especially when there are specific books that I can't find online, that are too expensive to buy or are not available in other libraries.
Not one for accumulating too much paper, I find that time in the library can often be counter productive, especially if you have a long list of books and not much time to read through them and take down the notes that you need for your chapter. Not only that, living at a distance from my university, I usually have to go to the nearest one (which is Loughborough) if I want to be able to fit it into my schedule.
There have been times where I have photocopied chapters out of books so that I can read them when I get home - I've also found myself sitting for hours scanning heavily requested books into my laptop so I access them when I need them, not during times that they are available. The first means that although you have the copy of the chapter for you to read later, it is another piece of paper that can be ignored or lost - and the second still requires to you to take the book home with you, only to be returned at a later date - taking up time that you don't probably have (if I know PhD students and their excuses for things. ;-))
Paul Kitchin pointed out Camscanner for me, an app for your mobile that allows you to convert images from your phone's camera to .pdf files. It also converts those images into a format that can be easily read (the way a computer scanner might) and the paid version allows for you to merge as many documents as you would like. Once you have scanned the chapter (or the 5% of book that you are allowed to copy under current copyright laws ;-)) you can send it easily to dropbox or google docs to view on your computer. Like a scan, you can edit your .pdfs using software of choice. This can then be sent to reference management software, kindles, ipads, whatever - to read at a time where you can actually read and annotate properly (and slot it directly into your literature reivew.)
That being said - I love the library. It is a great place to work, it helps remind me that I am still part of a university (even when I can't be there all the time) and constantly amazes me about how little I actually know about stuff. I just want to make sure that when I can get here, the time spend is doing something that I wouldn't be able to do when I am at home (actually get access the huge amount of books on my reading list that I need to be getting as soon as possible.) Also, I'm about to head to Greece for a month, so anything that can help me write and keep working whilst I'm on the move, the better.
Today I caught the earliest train in the world up north to York to take part in a National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement networking event for their public engagement ambassadors (PEAs- for which I am the one at UWS who managed to hijack that position) at the University of York. The event was designed as a small-ish discussion event, where there were several presentations around examples of public engagement case studies at York, followed by an open session where we got to have a discussion about what we thought public engagement meant, what a network might look like and what we would like to achieve from it. The session concluded with an introduction to social media, followed by several case studies from other researchers who have used digital media to disseminate research and to engage students and the public with their research area.
The session was split evenly between early career researchers (mid-late PhD students and post-doctoral associates) and those who work in student/community engagement, volunteer coordination, knowledge transfer and student/staff development. There was a even balance of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences and STEM subjects - with some, for instance, were historians looking at engineering or scientists working with media and communication students to produce science communication OERs.
The reasons why I decided to apply to become a public ambassador was two-fold. Firstly, I was curious to learn about the language being used to described something that I inherently do (I am public before I am an academic, if I am an academic at all), but also observe how institutions expect the notion of 'public engagement' to be incorporated into the research process. In some case, it was about how to write a 'pathways to impact' statement within a research councils funding proposal - or how to "measure" the impact of the engagement with the research, something that was incredibly problematic in many ways as it suggests that there could be a standardized method of existing within society. The second reason, and perhaps the one that relates to the formal aspect of my PhD "training" (I do not endorse that term - but I must acknowledge it) where I can use something like the Public Engagement network to coordinate some of the roles I've been playing over the last three years into something coherent. That is, rather than suggesting that I am a PhD student that does wee workshops on the side and "just" a PhD student and therefore will be treated like throw away labour, that instead I am a bonafide 'professional' (because I would be if I progressed down a route that did not incorporate a PhD into it) who has a history in x) y) z) and can be pulled together using this language in order to start to see patterns, useful collaborations and to be more targeted, more articulate with my approach to research. Of course, there is a danger that these are all just words - and I've seen a lot of words very similar to these being used all over the shot - but at the same time, in order to be taken seriously by the institutions and organisations who have asked me to do some work, but fail to pay me promptly, I need to play the rhetoric back at them.
For me, the most captivating session from today was Kate Harper from Sensory Stories Project. Kate's work concerns students at York University in volunteering work, and she gave an interesting history of York's community work, from getting students into schools to help out for a half-day a week - to incorporating research projects and more student as producer style work into local organizations such as art galleries, community spaces and nursing homes. Sensory Stories was an AHRC funded project that used "embodied methods" to encourage humanities PhD students to communication their work to a wider audience. The twist was that every project had to be told as a story using the sense - touch, smell, vision, sound - and the students were given training through the volunteering process. For me, what I took away from what Kate said was the need for a practical project to wrap training around. So often I hear about opportunities (including through our own #media2012 project) for citizen media training, but without a practical (sometimes wacky, bizarre) context or project, the workshops just don't stick. I hope that the work that I'm developing as part of the Dumfries and Galloway Social Media project (that I need to blog about next week) will incorporate something along this lines. Trick is, we aren't a commercial, corporate operation - we are a university - and we could and should try and push things a little more than powerpoint slides and the 'how-to' expert-to-audience model.
Saying that, throughout the day, I found myself increasingly becoming aware of others using the term "the public" with no real explanation about what 'the public' means. In one instance, another PEA said that we needed to 'make the public' come to our website in order to critique what we are doing - and that would be a way of stopping academics doing projects that were socially/economically irrelevant. There was an opportunity for anybody to take the mic and explain something that they were up to - when I went up to speak, I found myself bumbling to the conclusion that I was not an "academic" - not in that untouchable "How can I make the public listen to me so I can get more research council funding??" - but a member of the public. I was a member of the public, the unimaginable, ubiquitous public that had somehow found themselves doing a PhD, in a space that they had no previous history with, trying to make sense about what it is all about and trying not to be intimidated by the power structures that are in place to suppress and deny things happening. Things like social media (or more generally - the internet) help - not as a broadcast tool for pushing out my book or a peer reviewed paper, but a way in which I can articulate stuff that I would never in my right mind articulate to a roomful of people. That I can chat with people who deliberately don't share my discipline, but people I can connect with, have something in common with, and we can help each other grow stronger in how we articulate alternatives to dominant narratives. I want to remain in this world, because I am starting to believe I have something valuable that I can contribute, especially when I see what some of the bigger universities are being funded to research.
But I don't see public engagement as what it is, a REF outcome, a funding tickbox, I see it as something that is all around us already. Of course, the government don't think that - fuck them twats, what do they know - it is important to use what we have in front of us, to break it down and understand what those words really means when we batter them around. What is important to me is that the things that I do mean something to me, and that I fulfill the hunch I have about it - and if it means occupying a few universities, injecting a little bit of an alternative - and importantly, having the confidence to challenge what is going on, what people are saying, what people are doing (or asking questions about what is going on, not finding a way to fit your research into the conversation) - then yeah, I’m confident we can still get stuff done.
I took part in a two day workshop on consensus decision making at the weekend. It was ran by the worker's coop 'seeds for change' who had visited Lincoln in order to provide training to those who were part of the social science centre and some members of transition town lincoln. I originally decided to take part due to my involvement, interest and support for the social science centre - as well as it being one of the first groups (or movements) that I have officially signed up to be a member of.
There are more details (and quite a complete resource) of what the workshop offered on the seeds for change website - but in short, it was a demonstration of a set of processes used by activist groups and communities that are argued to be more democratic and representative in terms of clarifying issues and finding solutions. Most of the exercises in the workshop were to make us think about who we are in the process, the steps taken within that process and the assumption that through trust in the process, and trust in each other, the right decision for the people present and participation would arise. Which, I felt, was probably useful in the safe space of a workshop of shared interest/friendship - but wasn't too sure how I would feel about it in other circumstances. Although, learning to sit back at meetings/discussions in the workplace and recognise power was quite a useful trick, but perhaps one that could be used against others rather than one I could honestly use to make the 'right' decision - mainly because of my lack of influence as a PhD student in particular circumstances.
There are also some interest critiques of the consensus decision making process 1/2 - which I could probably relate to if I found myself participating in a space such as an occupation or climate camp. This is not because I am against the cause (far from it), more so that I am just not used to/good at working as a large defined group. There is something to be said about the decisions made to undertake a PhD (a solitude process - which I made even more solitude by choosing to be on campus), there is something to said about my experiences in education and why I am interested in and spend a lot of time online. Already by reflecting on the consensus decision process, I'm deliberately (admitting to) distancing myself from being able to feel that I could fully be part of particular circumstance. It would be difficult to articulate that in space where a particular 'mindset' needs to be achieved in order for the decision to be make. Particular roles need to be adopted (as they are expected to be) and already you are being asked to step out of whatever you were/are/know previously to encounter the decision as a group, rather than as an individual.
It's made me think really hard this week. Probably a bit too much. But I can only feel that the way that it has made me assess my character, who I am, the exercises that I deliberately avoid getting into (some of which were present during the PGCert I'm finishing off - especially the ones around active listening) have totally knocked my confidence about who I am when I am amongst groups and how I behave when I know people, when I don't know people, why I probably find twitter a little too useful to avoid making too many decisions about the conversations happening around me.
But nevertheless, the process has also made me think hard about my PhD (which concerns how social technology/networks facilitates relationships between individuals and groups in order to challenge/create dominant narratives.) Being part of a process, on behalf of something I really feel strongly about (the future of education, viable alternatives to higher education) has helped me perhaps understand the groups I've observed on the fringes (those who are against the olympics, or hacking the olympics, or using social media/mobile technology as a tool/method/platform to communicate/critique/share personal/under represented stories abut local/national/international issues.)
For context, although I am working on a PhD that concerns alternative media spaces, which involved an ethnography, and 'collected data' (I hate that expression- it is pseudo-science that detracted from human relationships formed) on groups who identified as being exactly that - alternative media collectives, citizen journalists or independent spaces that are presented as a-political/non-commercial/technical constructs/different from the dominant idea of media production and distribution. At no point whilst I was doing so, did I sign up to be considered as an active decision maker in the group, nor expected to have an influence on the direction the groups took - but at the same time, some academics would probably argue quite heavily against my involvement in process will eventually affect my 'results' (again, like data, it's far too limited for my liking) - that it might have been easier for me to assess alternative media content, study/analysis social media data and triangulate these things with interviews with participants. Regarding the circumstances, however, it just felt too clinical, too structured to accomodate what I ended up doing.
I've came from the perspective that I remained 'native' throughout - but I guess native for me, is to remain on the edges and not really fully be enveloped in any one thing - but to be part of many. It could be from my experiences of always wanting to distance myself from groups forming, never feeling part of anything, not being confident that I can say the things people want to hear, or more likely that I did not want to *just* a PhD student, studying a group that was being observed from other perspectives (many volunteers were students/academics as well as activists), but also understudied because of the limited critique available within those who study the Olympic Games in general. It really was an intense process trying to achieved out who I was within that sphere - and still have the energy to take part in the activities/events/action.
At the time, this really affected me - as in, wouldn't join in on things I thought I was expected to join in. Avoiding answering my phone. Hiding during 'major' events which I assumed where expected to be. Freaking out about going to too many things, not going to enough things, nothing going to the right things. Worrying about what people thought about me being there, expecting me to know something, to bring it to the table. And I didn't really express myself as well as I could have. There were many dominant characters (which I'll write about in my research, especially when it comes to how an individual recognises their power and can convey that power through their knowledge of a technology/circumstances/network) - it was a real battle of ideas. There was a film crew, filming the narrative of the alternative (which I avoided - or never got asked, but I watched other trying to articulate their thoughts about the process - I contributed on the sidelines through a couple of blog posts I wrote about network analysis at the time) - I watched a lot of people trying to articulate how they felt about the Olympics, about the process and when I wore my media pass, many others tried to communicate theirs to me. Like I was going to be able to help them get their voice out there. The decisions to avoid going directly to events but to wander around on my own for much of the time, found me being invited into community houses (in the same way, how I approached occupations), to speak to people directly (again, they were offering me their thoughts, rather than me asking questions or trying to form my own narrative about what I was experiencing) - it was complex and messy, but transformative - and an experience and a half, but I've been grappling for the last 18 months about how I frame this discussion, how much of it is about the Olympics and more about how we identify which each other - and how much of citizen media is about activism for profit (I'm battling with the idea of open data, hack spaces, consensus, sponsorship and techno-optimism.)
So from here on in, I'm taking the idea of 'native' in a completely different way - not something that can be presented at a conference in a way that is objective and rationalised (and an argument as to *why* I chose not just to scrap a bunch of data from the web and develop my own method of analysing it), where I become just another link in the chain where nothing is affected by my dissemination. Where I'm using the data, this experience, this everything to tick boxes for my own career when I'm so wrapped up in the processes themselves.
Saying that, there is also both [the obvious] critique of the Olympic Games to be made (especially as it is so limited within a the political/social context that it exists within at the moment with the breaking down of major media conglomerates/peak oil/economic meltdown/ austerity measures/ ring-fenced budgets/the spectacle/etc) but also to be wary of social movements, the assumption that because something is wrapped in technology, that it is a radical alternative/challenge to what exists already (noted when those who participate in activities such as "hackerspaces" can do so, and call in a new form of capitalism without a hint of irony or reflection.) Therefore, I'm finding myself struggle with, and not accepting one full blown alternative or being able to suggest solutions of my own. And that is where consensus became problematic and stressful for me in someways, and a lesson to be learned in others. I kind of feel that in the same way my time spent in Vancouver was transformative (and I returned to the UK not knowing who the fuck I was, or wanted to be, and blocked over 1000 people on twitter because I became really aware of being 'followed' and who I was to a 1000) - participating in this process has also been another turning point in terms about how I go about framing, focussing and getting my PhD written in a way that I will be happy with but also acknowledges the complex politics that seems to be ignored in the so many different places/contexts that I've found myself presenting my work.
