Warren Sack

Biography
Warren Sack is a software designer and media theorist whose work explores theories and designs for online public space and public discussion. At the University of California, Santa Cruz, he is an assistant professor in the Film and Digital Media Department where he teaches both critical studies and new media production. He is also affiliated with the Computer Science Department and is on the graduate faculty of the Digital Arts / New Media M.F.A. Program that is housed by both the Arts Division and the School of Engineering. Before joining the faculty at UC Santa Cruz, Warren was an assistant professor at UC Berkeley (SIMS) where he directed the Social Technologies Group. He has also been a research scientist at the MIT Media Laboratory, and a research collaborator in the Interrogative Design Group at the MIT Center for Advanced Visual Studies. He earned a B.A. from Yale College and an S.M. and Ph.D. from the MIT Media Laboratory. More about his current work can be found at http://hybrid.ucsc.edu/SocialComputingLab.

Position Paper
Computers and networks are now an important infrastructural element of public space and a substrate of public discussion. But, because these foundations were originally designed as tools and engines of calculation, and not as places of exchange and discussion, there is a mismatch between the needs of public discourse and the available computational means. This is a conceptual or theoretical mismatch as much as it is a concern of software design. For instance, conventionally, in computer science, we might say that a piece of code is better if it is faster or more efficient, but, inefficiency is often a virtue when “codes” are designed for democratic systems (cf., the “checks and balances” of government). Consequently, the old criteria of computer science no longer suffice for the evaluation of social software of this sort. This is an instance where the evaluative criteria of social computing must critically differentiate itself from older disciplines and, yet, simultaneously engage them deeply enough to question their foundational criteria of evaluation and critique. This talk is a both a critique of older criteria of evaluation and a proposal of alternative criteria for designing and judging new, social software for the facilitation of public discussion and exchange.

It is argued that new criteria for the evaluation of social, public software can be found in the philosophy and practices of democracy. The political theorist, Chantal Mouffe has articulated a vision of democratic discussion as a competition (an “agon”) for control of political common sense (The Democratic Paradox, 2000). This is akin to George Lakoff’s understanding of political discussion as a competition to frame the issues or the candidates (Don’t think of an elephant, 2004). Since online, political discussions are, usually, heated shouting matches and not rational exchanges, Mouffe’s theoretical foundations provide a more realistic departure point than the Habermasian (Jurgen Habermas) ideals assumed by most technologists working in this area and provide an alternative to the framework of social capital that has been advanced (e.g., the frameworks of Paul Resnick and Robert Putnam). This proposal is illustrated with the demonstration of a system for visualizing the dynamics of online discussions as a competition, “Agonistics: A Language Game” (Sack, 2005).

Back to Social Computing Symposium 2005