path: root/tests/html/riemenstext.html.simple

<div style="width:38em; margin:auto; text-align:justify; font-family:sans;"><h1 style="text-align: center">Riemens, Some Thoughts on the Idea of "Hacker Culture"</h1> 
     <p align="center"><b>SOME 
       THOUGHTS ON THE IDEA OF "HACKER CULTURE"<br>
       </b><br>
       <b>Patrice 
       Riemens<br>
       <br>
       </b></p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em"><i>"The 
       Theory of 'Free Software' as the seed of a post-capitalist society only 
       makes sense where it is understood as the exposure of those very contradictions 
       of the development of productive forces which are relevant to the process 
       of emancipation. It does not, however, make sense as a discovery of a 
       format for their deployment out of which would automatically spring forth 
       a better society. And it does not make sense either as the first stage 
       of a process that one ought to follow as if it were a blueprint." 
       ("Eight Theses on Liberation," Oekonux 
       mailing list)</i></p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">As 
       the new information and communication technologies (ICT) entered our lives 
       and became increasingly important in our daily activities, so did all 
       kinds of knowledge, working habits and ways of thinking that were previously 
       the exclusive domain of "geeks" and computer experts. Even though 
       the vast majority of ICT users are passive consumers, a modicum of technological 
       know-how is more and more prevalent among non-professionals, and these 
       days, artists, intellectuals, and political activists have become fairly 
       visible as informed and even innovative actors in what has become known 
       as the public domain in cyberspace.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">"Hackers," 
       also often, but inexactly referred to as "computer pirates" 
       or other derogatory term, constitute without doubt the first social movement 
       that was intrinsic to the electronic technology that spawned our networked 
       society. Hackers, both through their savyness and their actions, have 
       hit the imagination and have been in the news right from the onset of 
       the "information age," being either hyped up as bearers of an 
       independent and autonomous technological mastery, or demonized as potential 
       "cyber-terrorists" in the process. More recently they have been 
       hailed in certain "alternative" intellectual and cultural circles 
       as a countervailing power of sorts against the increasingly oppressive 
       onslaught of both monopolistic ICT corporations and regulation-obsessed 
       governments and their experts. Transformed into role-models as effective 
       resistance fighters against "the system," their garb has been 
       assumed with various degrees of (de)merit by a plethora of cultural and 
       political activists associated, closely or loosely, with the "counter-globalization 
       movement."</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">Yet, 
       whereas hackers (if we take a broad definition of the term) have been 
       pioneering the opening up of electronic channels of communication in the 
       South, in the North, they initially were held in suspicion by those same 
       circles. Political militants there hesitated for a long time before embarking 
       into computers and the new media, which they tended to view as "capitalist" 
       and hence "politically incorrect." By the mid-nineties, however, 
       "on-line activism" made rapid progress worldwide as more and 
       more groups adopted the new technologies as tools of action and information 
       exchange. The dwindling costs of equipment and communication, the (relative) 
       ease of use, the reliability and security, and the many options that were 
       offered by ICT were a boon to activists of all possible denominations. 
       All this was also a very bad surprise to the people at the helm of corporate 
       and political power, as they saw a swift, substantial, and many-pronged 
       breakdown of their stranglehold on communication and information taking 
       place. For some time, it looked like as if a level playing field between 
       hitherto dominators and dominated had come within sight.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">The 
       Net, as a result, became not only one of the principal carriers of political 
       activism, but also one of its major locus and issue. Once they had overcome 
       their initial shock and surprise, the powers that be were bound to react 
       forcefully. And they did, beefing up the "protection" of so-called 
       intellectual property, erecting ever higher walls around expert knowledge 
       and techniques, and unlashing all-round measures of control and surveillance 
       on electronic communications. But resistance against this (re)subjugation 
       of the networks also got organized. Almost by necessity, more and more 
       activists became conversant with the new technologies, which in the given 
       circumstances had to be a hands-on learning process. This process saw 
       activists turning "techies" and "geeks" turning activists 
       and has resulted in activist circles (political, but also intellectual, 
       cultural, and artistic) becoming markedly, sometimes completely, ITC-driven. 
       However, as we will see, this does not ipso facto make them hackers.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">But 
       it was equally within the domain of ICT itself that the exponential expansion 
       of both range and carrying capacity of the Internet, as well of that of 
       the related technologies, and all this within an increasingly aggressive 
       commercial environment made experts think again about the consequences 
       of these developments and even reconsider their methods, opinion, and 
       for quite a few of them, their position within the hitherto obtaining 
       order of things. Rejecting the new enclosures that are being imposed on 
       the dissemination of knowledge and techniques by commercial and/or state 
       interests, they are exploring new avenues of developing, spreading, and 
       also rewarding knowledge-building that are not exploitative and monopolistic 
       or even solely profit-oriented. Hence the flight taken by various software 
       programs, utilities and application modalities that have become known 
       under the generic name of Linux, Free Software, Open Source, and General 
       Public License (for definitions, see www.gnu.org).</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">De 
       prime abord, these developments suggest that given these technological 
       settings and socio-economic and political circumstances, convergence was 
       bound to take place between the actors involved, meaning a merger between 
       hackers and (political, cultural etc) activists since they were spreading 
       the same message, and operated in parallel ways under similar threats. 
       Unfortunately, this interpretation is as unwarranted in its optimism as 
       it is precipitate in its formulation. Following a line of reasoning aptly 
       called by the Dutch "the wish is the mother of the idea," such 
       interpretation is based on the assumed relation, not to say equivalence, 
       between individuals and groups, and between pursuits, motives, and methods 
       whose affinities and linkages, even when viewed under the designation 
       of "new social movements," are far from evident. In fact the 
       alleged congruence is inherently unstable since it is contingent, and 
       the supposedly common positions between those two groups are often absent 
       altogether, and sometimes even contradictory. Whereas it would be excessive 
       to portray hackers and activists in terms of "never shall the twins 
       met," the idea, asserted by many a political activist and certain 
       "public intellectuals," to the effect that their coalescence 
       is both natural and inevitable is equally outlandish. Not only does it 
       run roughshod of the sensibilities of "authentic" hackers - 
       and it does so unfortuitously - it also misrepresents reality hence giving 
       rise to erroneous hypothesizes and unwarranted expectations.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">"Hacker 
       culture," a concept one often encounters these days among networked 
       activists, purports to represent this playful confluence between tech 
       wizardry and the moral high ground. Hence, "Open Source" is 
       fast becoming an omnibus framework and a near-universal tool-kit to tackle 
       very diverse social issues, such as artistic production, law, epistemology, 
       education, and a few others, which are but remotely - if at all - related 
       to the field of software research and development, and the social environments 
       from which it originates. There is little wrong in itself to this - imitation 
       being the best of compliments - but for the fact that it tends to obscure 
       a sticky problem. Between hackers and activists often looms a wide gap 
       in approach and attitude that is just too critical to be easily papered 
       away. And it is precisely this fundamental difference that is usually 
       being hushed up by the evangelists of what I call the "hackers-activists 
       bhai-bhai" gospel - phrased after the celebrated slogan mouthed by 
       Chinese and Indian Ministers in 1953: "Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai" 
       ("India and China are Brothers") … nine years later, both countries 
       were at war. A good, if a contrario, example of a really occurring non-equivalence 
       between political activists applying ICT and hackers is provided by that 
       spurious hybrid known as "hacktivism." "Hacktivism" 
       was originally coined by the Boston-based hackers "Cult of the Dead 
       Cow" (www.cultdeadcow.com), whose tag-line read "We put the 
       hack in activism." It was all about using ICT skills to thwart attacks 
       on liberties by powerful institutions. The group later had to defend itself 
       of guilt by association with respect to recent manifestations of "hacktivism" 
       as Distributed Denial of Services (DoDS) attacks.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">Behind 
       the so-called "Hacker Ethic" is the usual, daily activity of 
       hackers. To put it very simply, without going deeper into its precise 
       content, the hacker ethic runs strikingly parallel to the formula "l'art 
       pour l'art." What matters here, is the realization that, unlike activists, 
       hackers are focused on the pursuit of knowledge and the exercise of curiosity 
       for its own sake. Therefore, the obligations that derive from the hacker 
       ethic are perceived by genuine hackers as sovereign and not instrumental, 
       and always prevail above other aims or interests, whatever these may be 
       - and if there are any at all. This consequently makes the hackers movement 
       to be wary of any particular blueprint of society, however alternative, 
       and even adverse to embrace particular antagonism (some hackers, and not 
       minor ones, are for instance loath to demonize the Microsoft Corporation). 
       Hence the spread of political and philosophical opinions harbored by individual 
       hackers, without any loss of their feeling of identity and belonging to 
       the "movement" at large or even their particular group, is truly 
       astonishing, and very unlikely to obtain within any other "new social 
       movement." In fact, the militant defense of individual liberties 
       and a penchant for rather unegalitarian economic convictions one encounters 
       in tandem among a good many hackers has provided for bafflement among 
       networked political (i.e. left-leaning) activists coming to be better 
       acquainted with their "natural allies." Yet it is neither fortuitous 
       nor aberrant that the Californian transmutation of libertarianism enjoys 
       such widespread support among hackers.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">The 
       existence of such "ideological" positions has its reflection 
       in the daily and usual activities of hackers, which are generally characterized 
       by an absence of preconceived ideas and positions. Despite the avowed 
       "end of the great narratives," this is not the case with political 
       activists, since they do have objectives and aims that precede their actions. 
       Hackers, on the other hand, are usually happy with the "mere," 
       but unrestricted, pursuit of knowledge, which reduces their "political 
       program," if that can be so called, to the freedom of learning and 
       enquiry, and thus would seem to fall very much short of demands for justice, 
       equality, emancipation, empowerment, etc that are formulated by political 
       militants. Yet they seem to be content with it, and there are good arguments 
       to think that such a program, as limited as it may sound, is essential, 
       not subsequent, to the achievement of the better society we all aspire 
       too.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">This 
       being said, the points of convergence between the activities of hackers 
       and those of (political) activists are many, and they increase by the 
       day. It is becoming more and more evident that both groups face the same 
       threats, and the same adversaries. As expert technological knowledge - 
       especially of ITC - that sits outside the formally structured (and shielded) 
       domains of corporate or political power gets evermore vilified in the 
       shape of "(cyber)-terrorist" fantasies, paranoia, and finally, 
       repression, while at the same time this very expertise is increasingly 
       being mastered and put to use by the enemies of the neo-liberal "One 
       Idea System," stronger, if circumstantial, links are being welded 
       between hackers and activists. And these linkages are likely to deepen 
       and endure in the same measure as the hostility and risks both groups 
       are likely to encounter augment, it is worthwhile to analyze what unites 
       as well as what separates them.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">"Hacktivist" 
       activities (and I am mostly referring here to the handywork of three groups, 
       Electronic Disturbance Theater, Electrohippies and RTMark), well advertised 
       by their authors, but also gleefully reported in the mainstream media, 
       are illustrative of the gap that parts activists from hackers. The former 
       usually view "hacktivism," which exploits the innumerable glitches 
       and weaknesses of ICT systems to destabilize the electronic communication 
       supports of "enemy organs" (government agencies, big corporations, 
       international financial institutions, "fascist" groups, etc.), 
       as a spectacular form of resistance and sabotage. The latter (generally) 
       take a much dimmer view, considering these activities as ineffective and 
       futile, and moreover, in most cases, technically inept as well. Such activities 
       (or antics) endanger the integrity of the network which hackers consider 
       to be theirs also. "Denial of Service" attacks, irrespective 
       of aims and targets, amount in their eyes to attacks on the freedom of 
       expression, which they seem to respect in a much more principled manner 
       than most political activists.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">The 
       truth is, that by abetting "hacktivism," activists implicitly 
       admit that the net has become a mere corporate carrier, to which they 
       have only a subordinate, almost clandestine, access, as opposed to be 
       stakeholders in, and thus sharing responsibility for it. This constitutes 
       their fundamental divergence with hackers, and it is not easily remediable.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">Political 
       activists are also, almost by definition, inclined to seek maximum media 
       exposure for their ideas and actions. Their activities, therefore, tend 
       to be public in all the acceptations of the term. The range of issues 
       that are covered by their ideals, and the variety of means and methods 
       to achieve the same make they need some form of organization, which is 
       often complex, because of and not despite the fact they strive for distribution 
       and horizontality. The result is that even in the most alternative of 
       circles, an apparatus and leaders appear, whose very informality obscures 
       rather than prevent hierarchies from arising. This does not suit well 
       the practice and the ethics of hackers, which Pekka Himanen has described 
       as "monastic" (www.hackersethic.org). The habitus may be monastic, 
       the behavior of hackers may however, perhaps be more suitably paralleled 
       with the "Slashta," the Polish gentry. There too, we see a desire 
       between equals, that is equals recognized as such beforehand, and hence 
       also elitist. Political activists on the other hand are much more opportunistic 
       when it comes to alliances and associations they engage in.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em">So 
       does the idea of "hacker culture" represent an effective way 
       to describe and define certain current modes of political activism, especially 
       when those do have a large ICT component? In many instances where the 
       term is being used, to the point of having become one of the "buzz-word 
       du jour," I do not believe so. In many cases, it is the romantic 
       appeal of what is perceived as hacker power and prowess that leads to 
       a superficial adoption of the "hacker attitude" moniker by the 
       cultural and political activists, but not of its underlying methods and 
       values. That does not mean that there exists an absolute incompatibility 
       between those two groups, and there are fortunately cases suggesting the 
       existence of a continuum - such as the Indymedia tech community's pairing 
       of expertise to a "serve the people" type of operation (tech.indymedia.org, 
       www.anarchogeek.com). But it should caution against a facile (and trendy) 
       assumption of an equivalence, and maybe against the confusion-inducing 
       use of the term "hacker culture" itself.</p>
     <p style="margin:1em 0em"><br>
       <i>This article first 
       appeared in French in Multitudes, 
       Vol 2, No 8, March-April 2002, and in (an expanded) English translation 
       in Cryptome 
       on June 3, 2002.<br>
       </i><br>
     </p>
     <p align="center"><b>about 
       Patrice Riemens &gt;&gt;</b></p>
     </div>