<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Phew</title>
	<atom:link href="http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2009/02/09/phew-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2009/02/09/phew-2/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 08:38:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ben</title>
		<link>http://homecookedtheory.com/archives/2009/02/09/phew-2/comment-page-1/#comment-89036</link>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 08:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://homecookedtheory.com/?p=815#comment-89036</guid>
		<description>Hmmm, participatory media. Remember my harsh words about &quot;participation&quot; last year? In which I agreed with Morley and declared that I was &quot;against&quot; it? I&#039;m rethinking this somewhat. My usual schtick was to note that the word &quot;participate&quot; never has a literal object, thus acting as a cover for the shadowy arms of naturalised social corporatism, and a dutiful relationship with the state. I&#039;m now interested in what happens if we move the focus away from citizen-actors and towards more abstract flows, while keeping the terminology. &quot;Participation&quot; then turns into something more interesting and ambivalent, something more discursive. Rather than servicing a crypto-authoritarian, biopolitical demand for &quot;social fitness&quot;, &quot;participation&quot; then becomes something a bit more hackable, subject to discursive tweaks -- a different kind of agency.

Sorry, thinking aloud.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm, participatory media. Remember my harsh words about &#8220;participation&#8221; last year? In which I agreed with Morley and declared that I was &#8220;against&#8221; it? I&#8217;m rethinking this somewhat. My usual schtick was to note that the word &#8220;participate&#8221; never has a literal object, thus acting as a cover for the shadowy arms of naturalised social corporatism, and a dutiful relationship with the state. I&#8217;m now interested in what happens if we move the focus away from citizen-actors and towards more abstract flows, while keeping the terminology. &#8220;Participation&#8221; then turns into something more interesting and ambivalent, something more discursive. Rather than servicing a crypto-authoritarian, biopolitical demand for &#8220;social fitness&#8221;, &#8220;participation&#8221; then becomes something a bit more hackable, subject to discursive tweaks &#8212; a different kind of agency.</p>
<p>Sorry, thinking aloud.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

