Monthly Archives: March 2004

RELATIONSHIP: Context, Culture, Power

The brilliant Master Shirky offers a stunning critique on the limitations of RELATIONSHIP (with clarifications).

Key Shirky views:
– “a formal and explicit ontology for human relations is unworkable”
– “most human relations cannot be made explicit without changing the nature of the relationship”
– terms for classifying relationships are unbounded (and hell, people can’t do do it anyway)
– FOAF developers can’t develop their own ontology because of their insider role

Not only do i agree his views on the matter, i think that they need to be affirmed. I’m also SUPER psyched that he referenced that AI debates because this historical precedent is crucial for understanding why so many of the discussions around social software are flawed.

I would also like to add a few additional points to why this problem is unsolvable:

Relationships are situated within a CONTEXT.

Think about the times when you’ve introduced somebody differently to different people. Here’s an example. Said to boss: “Alex is my friend.” Said to best friend: “Alex is this girl i’m fucking.” Said to mom: “Alex is this nice girl i’m dating.” Which is it? All? None? Context!

Another context: time. Your relationship with someone changes over time. Duh. But guess what? It also changes over local periods of time. For example, i can label the person in my kitchen right now as my ex. I can also label him as tonite’s chef. When i’m done with this entry, i’ll probably label him my confidante. His role is not consistent.

Relationships are defined by CULTURE; their types are SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS.

The term “friend” means different things in different cultures. Hell, even the term cousin differs. In fact, if you want to have a field day, check out anthropology kinship research. For some cultures, what we might call “uncle” another culture would call “father” (an individual would have multiple fathers). To define a universal relationship structure is to project our cultural norms onto other peoples. Yet, without a universal structure, there’s no common language.

On a more personal level, how many of you have ever called your step-mum mum? Are you lying? How would you categorize her here? What about your adoptive mum? What are the implications for you, for her, for others? People label their step-mums and adoptive mums as mum as a social construct to indicate the value of the relationship, not simply a reflection of the biological term. Likewise, there’s nothing worse than telling someone “you’re just my step-mum” or “you’re not my real mother; you just adopted me.” What are the implications for using those terms in an ontology?

Relationships do not exist without POWER.

No relationship exists without power (see Foucault’s “History of Sexuality v1”). Power can be shared via turn-taking, but there is no such thing as pure equality in a relationship. There are times when one person has power over another; sometimes, the reverse is true. Relationships are a negotiated process.

While labeling some relationships, the power dynamic is unveiled. For example, i cannot be the mother of the person who is the mother of me. Inherently, there’s a mother/daughter relationship, marked explicitly by its power. Some such relationships are only 1-way: fan/stranger. The obsessed doesn’t know the obsessor.

Then there are the relationships that we’re determined to define equally. Friend-Friend. Do both people get the same thing out of the relationship? Does “Friend” mean the same thing to each person? Hell, think of all of your friends. Do you really mean the same thing when you label dozens of different people with that term? (If you do, please seek therapy.) We throw that word around because often the process of making explicit the power dynamic is neither socially acceptable nor something we want to own up to.

Relationships are often built on an undiscussed meeting of each other’s needs. “She’s my friend because she always gives me a ride home. In return, i listen to her bitching about her job.” Both people are getting something out of the relationship that they each need/want. It’s valuable to each of them, but neither really wants to make that explicit.

The best debate on this inevitably surrounds sex. Sex workers have the negotiation down. Money for sex. People may scoff at this explicit negotiation, but many of us have had sex for far less honorable reasons. Ever had sex with your lover so that s/he’ll go to sleep? Ever had sex to spite someone? To get what you want? Sexual relationships emerge from power dynamics. Rarely do people engage in sex for the exact same reason. To get off? To feel loved? To feel validated? The BDSM community recognizes this power dynamic and makes it explicit; most of us do not.

Given that most of us aren’t really able to address our power issues, how are we supposed to label them?

Update: Ideas Bazaar discusses this in terms of kinship terminology, anthro style. The focus is on lack of quality terminology. [via Foe]

why my robbery matters :: essential questions about blogging and social networks

Identity theft is supposedly the #1 crime in America right now, according to all of my creditors. Thousands (?millions?) of people have their identity (and associated materials) stolen every year. Yet, it is really hard to track down these criminals and most law enforcement has to focus on violent crimes. I mean, who really has time to go after petty criminals who used someone’s credit card to buy burgers?

Yet, this situation interests me beyond my personal investment. Don’t get me wrong.. on a personal level, i’m pretty pissed that these guys had the gaul to come to my party and steal my shit. But on a meta-level, there are some interesting questions.

If the United States really is a small world, the people that i know should know people [iterate to on average 5.5] that know these guys, right? If blogs can extend beyond the echo-chamber, shouldn’t we be able to use blogs to reach the people who know these guys?

We’re living in a society that is quickly becoming camera-phone enabled. We’re worried about privacy when these pictures are broadcast, understandably. But can we use the breaks in privacy to demand legal justice? We often talk about how the Interweb is affecting the regulation of social norms… Can the connected community around the Interweb also enforce law?

Already, through this situation, i’ve seen the power of care. I’ve seen amazing people who i barely know act up to say this isn’t cool and do what they can to acquire information, spread the word, repost those pictures, etc. I’ve heard from people who’ve gone through similar situations. I’m in awe of the strangers who are being supportive, of the number of people who have experienced similar crap, with no justice.

Can we go beyond support? Can the Interweb/blogosphere actually demand justice on a personal level? And if i can demand justice for me, can it demand justice for others in a similar predicament? Can citizens take control over the thieves?

Having your identity materials stolen is very disempowering. Having to wait for cops to maybe consider trying to solve this problem is depressing. I don’t know if anything will come out of my broadcasting this situation, but it sure is empowering to try. And it really makes me wonder just how powerful the Interweb can be.

Useful links:
– Pictures of the thieves
– Craigslist missed connections post

Feel free to spread the word and help me identify these people, particularly if you have contacts in Austin.

Update: I forgot to note that i feel badly for misusing the term robbery here. I hadn’t realized that robbery and theft were not synonymous until the discussion emerged from this post. More precisely, i didn’t realize that robbery had to involve force, which this incident did not.

pictures of my robbers

Last week, six guys came into a party that i was cohosting and stole my stuff. The six came together and left together. Tonight, a dear friend found a picture of one of the guys online:

One party attender stated the this guy asked for the bathroom (where my purse was ripped apart for valuable items).

I contacted the photographer and he sent me the rest of the pictures where you can see more of the guys (time stamps: 1:24AM-1:39AM).

Another party attender accidentally walked in the bathroom when the actual robber was going through my bag. He didn’t realize what was going on at the time, but he was able to ID the actual robber from this picture:

“He’s in this picture, but his face isn’t visible. He’s the one standing closest to the orange door with the short hair and the green t-shirt. He was the tallest, least hip, and most drunk of the group. I wish you had something more identifying. That is definitely him.”

Because these guys racked up my credit cards (and used the web from my phone), it’s now a felony fraud investigation as well as a robbery. Thanks everyone for helping me track down more information. If anyone has any clues, do let me know. Needless to say, the bloggers are going faster than the detectives. Thank you thank you thank you to those3 who are looking out for me!

Update 3/23: Detective Jewett (the detective on this case) said that i could post his email if anyone has additional information and wants to send it directly to him. (Be nice! Don’t send anything not related to the case, cause he’s being open and helpful.)

Detective Jewett: jason [dot] jewett [at] ci [dot] austin [dot] tx [dot] us
Austin Police Report Number: 2004-501-1946

Continue reading →

how to solve problems with social networks

According to David, Eric Schmidt from Google said: “Social networks will get better as we figure out what problem they’re intended to solve.” In an attempt to learn from last week, i will try really hard to not take that literally and imagine that he meant to say that “social networking TOOLS will get better…”

But even still, there’s a bit of backwards logic here. Why are we asking: what can social networking tools solve? Why aren’t we asking: what problem do we have that social networks give us insight to? I remember when i first got involved in technology creation, there was always a technology-first, problem-second approach. A technology was created and then everyone was rushing around trying to put it to use. I find it very entertaining that social networks (which weren’t invented, but modeled) are being put to the same process.

The thing is that social network representations require nuance. We can either try to solve the nuances universally (not going to happen) or try to figure out what problems we’re trying to employ social networks in and figure out how to negotiate them there IN A CONTEXT. The latter is going to be far more successful. Haven’t we already learned that each YASNS models a different social network anyhow (and no, FOAF is not the answer here because the different models are often because people are segmenting their networks differently in order to represent different facets).

I don’t believe that social network tools will get better as we find our problems. I think that social networks will get embedded into tools simply because they help us solve specific problems. The focus won’t be on the network, but on the problem solving.

(::cringe:: I’m almost approaching activity theory here. Must stop.)

Clarification based on good question:

Q: What’s the diff? Either way you’re holding a hammer and looking for a nail, no?

A: The difference is key. When you are focused on building social networks just to build them, you make very different design decisions than when you are trying to design a tool the utilizes social networks as a concept employed to solve a task problem.

The difference has a lot to do with the amorphous discussion of what social network TOOLs are and what social networks are. They aren’t the same thing. RIght now, there’s no hammer. Just the shadow of a hammer, which doesn’t solve the same problems.

Furthermore, when you have a hammer, you try to find nails. You turn things that shouldn’t be nails into nails. This is a really really really bad thing when you’re dealing with people and their relationships. Instead of accidentally breaking the wooden post cause you thought it was a nail, you break people, their relationships, their trust and their willingness to participate.

thinking through a linked in request

First, i admit: i don’t get the business world. Thus, the social norms there are very lost on me. Recently i was faced with a Linked In request that brought this issue to the forefront.

I’m linked to two people that i barely know because of social politeness – Person B & D. Person B had a “friend” (A) that wanted to get person E (“friend” of D’s) to do something for him. I’ve never heard of A or E and only have vague name/product recognition of B&D. Person B passes me this note from A with an attached note saying that he doesn’t know him but it sounds reasonable.

So, as i saw it, i could have:
1) Passed it on, acknowledging that i barely know B to the barely known D and let it be his problem
2) Stopped it, saying that i don’t feel comfortable passing this on not knowing any of the parties
3) Pretended like i’m a ostrich and make it go away by sticking my head in the ground, fingers in ears, eyes closed screaming “i don’t see you”

Now, if you know me, you know that i chose 3. I *HATE* being stuck in the middle of socially awkward situations. All this made me wanna do is run very far away from Linked In. This in turn made me feel supremely guilty because i want Linked In to work for people.

The thing about helping people out in this context is that it’s supposed to make you feel empowered, like you did a good deed. But when you’re stuck in the middle of a chain of unknowns, you’re faced with the explicit feeling that your reputation is being forced through the ringer for people you don’t know. There are a lot of *friends* that i won’t vouch for on a professional level… why should i vouch for people that i don’t know?

I realized that the only way that i’m willing to help out a friend-of-a-friend is when i really care for the well-being of my friend and trust their relationship with that person. And that takes a lot more than a recognizable professional relationship. So, i had a little idea…

Orkut relieves my guilt by letting me mark that i don’t know a person who has be-friended me. I don’t have to say no – i can simply say i don’t know this person. They don’t know it and i don’t have to feel guilty. Although Orkut’s only purpose of this is guilt reduction, Linked In could actually use this approach to their advantage.

For example, why can’t i list all of the people that i know and rather than say how important they are to me, say what kind of requests i’m willing to receive from that end. For example:
1) Willing to take any requests that come down the chain from this person, no matter how many links
2) Willing to take requests from this person and their friends (or perhaps willing to take requests only from the friends who are of this level of value to them…)
3) Willing to take requests from this person only
4) Not willing to receive requests from this person no matter what (a.k.a. supreme guilt reduction based on having to accept them as a friend)

Of course, this would really screw with the graphs and who one could see. But i wonder if it would help people like me who want to run away because of the discomfort.

social networks for collegiate heritage admissions + affirmative action

I remember sitting in a dorm at Brown listening to people complain about why rich kids seemed to get into Ivy League schools regardless of their intelligence, scores or any other metric with which we were familiar judged; the complaint centered around heritage admissions and famous people’s kids. One of my friends reminded the group that it was clearly a valuable element and should be promoted not critiqued.

If you look at many well-known American universities, the primary value for undergraduates concerns the social network. Frankly, internationally renowned researchers can’t teach. But you don’t pay $30K a year to get the best *formal* education. You pay $30K a year to get tapped into a collection of like-minded driven people who will be a key aspect of your social network for life. The late-night dorm session conversations are so much more informative than the lecture halls. But the connections you make from shared alumni extend widely.

If you assume that the social network is the most valuable asset, it is clearly important to have as diverse a population as possible. You want to introduce the poor brilliant students to the rich ones because they will have a better chance. One of the most obvious impacts of higher education is that you jump socio-economic class. While i didn’t grow up as such, i recognize that i’m now a part of the privileged class. It is not due to my income (which is non-existent), but due to my potential and connections. Those connections are intimately tied into the network that i built as an undergraduate. Basically, college brings together people from diverse backgrounds and with unique access to knowledge or connections. This is then utilized to help groups of students branch out. College is the ideal time to meet new people who can/will introduce you to a wide variety of things.

Thus, from an admissions perspective, it is desirable to bring in rich kids who will not only help offset the costs for poor kids, but help introduce them to a network of possibility. This is why Harvard and Princeton’s decision to give all grants to the poorest students is a great idea. One of the biggest class dividers on a campus like that is who works in food service and who doesn’t because they don’t need to. By letting the groups mingle and not trying to reinforce class in these environments, there’s a great potential for connecting diverse people.

[I’d love to hear a critique of this perspective.]

politics gone awry

A year ago, i broke my hatred for protesting and took to the streets to publicly state my disagreement with my government. My support for their decisions has not grown. I still don’t understand what we’re doing in Iraq and i’m tired of the propaganda. But, unlike last year, i didn’t go to the streets. I find protests a bit frustrating because i don’t feel as though i’m actually helping any cause and the supposed community goodness part of it tends to turn me against my fellow dissenters.

That said, it makes me sick to my stomach to hear of police violence against protestors. Worse, i’m absolutely horrified to read about how the government operates to outlaw dissent in this country [a *scary* must read article – use the day pass – it’s worth it].

To cheer me up, a friend sent along a list of the marriage status of some of the biggest defenders of the sanctity of marriage (from The Daily Show):

Ronald Reagan — divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.

Bob Dole — divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.

Newt Gingrich — divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.

Dick Armey, House Majority Leader — divorced.

Senator Phil Gramm of Texas — divorced.

Governor John Engler of Michigan — divorced.

Governor Pete Wilson of California — divorced.

George Will — divorced.

Senator Lauch Faircloth — divorced.

Rush Limbaugh — and his current wife, Marta, have six marriages and four divorces between them.

Senator Bob Barr of Georgia — not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. He had the audacity to author and push the “Defense of Marriage Act.” The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is “Bob Barr — WHICH marriage are you defending?!?)

Senator Alf onse D’Amato of New York — divorced.

Senator John Warner of Virginia — once married to Liz Taylor.

Governor George Allen of Virginia — divorced.

Representative Helen Chenoweth of Idaho — divorced.

Senator John McCain of Arizona — divorced.

Representative John Kasich of Ohio — divorced.

Representative Susan Molinari of New York (Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker) — divorced.

The bottom line — “Don’t let gays destroy marriage — that’s the job of the Republicans!”

“If you really want to protect the institution of marraige, how about a constitutional amendment against adultery?”  – Jon Stewart

the bright river: a mass-transit tour of the afterlife

It has been way too long since i went to an underground performance art event. If you live in the Bay Area, you need to go see the bright river: a mass-transit tour of the afterlife next weekend. It was absolutely stunning.

Imagine Shalom Alecheim and Raymond Chandler got together and decided to rewrite Dante’s Inferno, and you have the basic premise for The Bright River. A dizzying journey through a world spinning helplessly out of control, the show sends audiences on a mass-transit tour of the afterlife. Guided by a fixer named Quick, and moving through an urban landscape that is at once both intensely real and fantastic, the show is a cinema verite look at life and death in America.

Trained as a traditional Jewish storyteller and oral historian, Tim Barsky has been getting increasing attention for his unique style of performance, which blends hip-hop, physical theatre and folklore. Tim is also the world’s first beatbox flutist, an aural prestidigitator capable of producing up to 8 rhythms and melodies at the same time. He is joined by the members of Everyday Theatre, a group of musicians drawn from the underground hip-hop and klezmer communities. Bassist and drummer Shree Shyam, cellist Jess Ivry, and beatboxer/ vocal percussionist Andrew Chaikin bring a diverse set of skills and traditions to bear. And physical theatre maestro Jeff Raz brings a wealth of tradition to the production in his role as directorial consultant.

Fantastic storytelling and the best beatbox artist i’ve seen. Go out and support fantastic local art!

Update: This show has had extreme success and will be re-opening in the Bay Area from December 1, 2004-January 16, 2005. Click here for more information. (Brought to you by too much Google juice.)

name morphing via the web

I’m really glad that David noted how his name gets morphed by the Internet. I have a similar situation. My name does not have capital letters in it, but when people see me lower-casing things on the web, they assume i’m just being lazy or artistic or something. Folks think that they should be more proper when they address me. Yet, when i publish papers, people realize that i went through effort to get my name lower-cased and they recognize this is how my name is spelled. (That’s why there’s an h – it’s all balance.) So, yes, my lower-casing is not an accident.

[Of course, one friend loves to send me emails full of capital letters, to make certain that i have enough for when the apocolypse comes. He sends me D’s and B’s just in case i needed a few extra.]