Diggers and Dreamers of the 20th and 21st Centuries: Creative Commons, Open source and Digital Folklore.

Presented ISEA RUHR 2010 In 1649 Gerrard Winstanleys Diggers created a piece of common land with a view to promoting communal and collective production and arguably laid the foundations for the concepts embedded within FLOSS / Creative Commons practices. Winstanleys vision of a new egalitarian society came to him in a dream. Yet despite the mystical associations with dream revelations, his vision should not be considered less valid. I suspect early Internet and open source pioneers e.g. Tim Berners Lee, Richard Strallman, Linus Torvalds et al would have much in common with this 17th Century visionarys ideals. This paper considers how the ongoing building and re-building inherent in FLOSS / Creative Commons Culture is a digital form of folklore that conceptually at least as its roots in longstanding traditions. Secondly when considered as a digital form of folklore the paper contributes to the existing arguments for the importance of common land for the production of the expression of culture that celebrates and enshrines the values of its communities, moving towards the Utopian dream of Gerard Winstanley. Due to time constraints I wont be addressing issues of capital within this paper although capital is an important concern. Most academics agree folklore has four functions although those functions are open to interpretation. It manifests as artifacts, oral traditions, cultural traditions and rituals all of which I would argue are represented within digital culture. Although I believe that open source culture has parallels in all four functions, it is the similarities between cultural practices - the validation of group practices / values transcending social limitations and the transfer of social information that I will be considering. The phrase Folk-lore was first used in a letter to The Athenaeum in1846 by William Thoms (Trubshaw, 2003, P4) and originally referred to the otherness of Folk - the collections and practices of rural peasants (Trubshaw 2003, P4). This otherness of Folk was not regarded as gentrified culture and was celebrated in practices that enshrined what these others did. Importantly though the practices were held and owned by the said others and not a small group of intellectuals and cultural elite, who were the usual producers of culture. These celebrations, although a celebration of otherness were for the most part also accessible to the cultural elite who also participated also their populist nature. The constant processes of repetition and representation that occurs within seasonal participatory folkloric events, whether dance, song or mythic tales, are actually variants. Each re-presentation will incorporate the styles, creativity and ability of those involved in the re-presentation. Although presented at a point in time and space, they continually undergo change, reflecting and reinforcing the position of those re-enacting them. This form of cultural hacking or re-mixing enables one to re-make the world in your own image, even if only for a brief period of time. The agency possible through the removal of limitations enables a vital and relevant

culture to be expressed. The fact that it is produced collectively justifies the values of the group without being an ego driven exercise of aggrandisement. Within folkloric practices it is understood that activities are accessible, somewhat experimental or improvised and collectively owned. This collective ownership enables the activities to be constantly re-invented and re-invigorated, with the source code being openly acknowledged. The remix culture evident within much of the practice that open source and Creative Commons facilitates I would argue is a continuous expression of these practices and pre-dates the music production in Jamaica or DJ sampling / re-mixing activities of the 70s, which is often cited as part of its heritage. Eduardo Navas acknowledges the digital re-mixs dependency on the recognition of pre-existing material and the fact, that audiences are expected to see and acknowledge that historical source. This is just as apparent within folklore and the re-presentation of the cultural code of its practices. Although open source development requires specialist knowledge, there is a reciprocal agreement between user and developer that creates, something much more complex, vital and expressive than if this symbiotic relationship didnt exist. Again this mirrors folkloric practice as there will always be innovation and innovators something borne out in the study of how culture evolves. But it is repetition and uptake by multiple members of the group that enables the development of activities an individuals into a tradition or cultural practice. The feedback loop of transmission, receipt, mutation and re-transmission, or Copy / Cut / Edit / Paste between users and developers, is similar to the process that creates the variants of every folk dance, event , story or song. The ability to select, edit and re-edit, is reflective of folkloric practices and grows from the sense of ownership even when building on existing codes whether these are a dance step, mythic tale or programming code. Barthes (1977), The Death of the Author springs to mind, whether the re-mix is undertaken through an on or offline activity. For Barthes, the text or in this case the cultural product takes life according to how the reader interprets it, with the reader hold[ing] the potential to make discourse productive. This lack of finality or limitation is what gives the text life, a factor in both folklore and open source cultures enabling the expression of culture and its evolution. For Foucault the terms of the authors privilege has only been re-neogtiated (Foucault in Prezios, D 1988 P). I feel this only adds to the consideration of the complex power relations that exist within these practices. Indeed it can be argued that actually they stabilise culture by merely facilitating an acceptable deviation held and contained within larger frameworks e.g. capitalism or geo-politics. This is a further shared aspect of Folklore / Open Source etc a means of expression for dissent. Although folkloric traditions, are often localised and appear to have a collective ownership that is exclusive, in terms of copyright anyone can re-mix that tradition. In fact this constant re-invigoration and re-invention within the context of their time and the remixers ideals could be the reason they survive, as this maintains an ongoing

relevance. There is concern that although folklore is one of the human universals its importance is in decline. I would say it that for some it has merely shifted its field of operations and evolving with the technological tools now available. For On and offline practices the commonality is still the expression of human culture. These self-organised and emergent activities whether on or offline have an important function within society, through the creation of spaces to express culture and as Sahlins states they do not passively reflect a culture they shape it too (Sahlins 1985, Pxi). Therefore If a culture shifts to an understanding of only sanctioned activities being permitted or cost / access becomes a prohibiting factor to expression, this will create a two-tiered system. Although this does not in itself stifle imagination, creativity or expression it instantly reduces the available space within which the imagination and its expression can be manifested and by whom. This then begins to shape culture in a restrictive non-expressive way. Currently internet access, creative commons and open source activity provides a platform for a complex multi-tiered system. This emergent accessible culture, common in folkloric practices is mirrored through the sharing and production of open source software and celebrated and protected within Creative Commons / CopyLeft licenses and open source. Returning to the concept of common land or the commons, those spaces or resources held in common (Bollier, 2003) it is apparent that in practice the commons are actually shared or owned by a distinct, easily identifiable group of individuals. Whether grazing animals, enacting traditions, remixing audio or sharing code, users of common land will have shared interests and values. As long as the available common land is greater than the number of identifiable groups wishing to use it this is not a problem and returns us to one of the important functions of folklore the justification or validation of shared values. Although there is often a proprietary or cost aspect somewhere even if not overtly stated and the issue of localised sharing / ownership, it is the understanding of the commons as still accessible that is important and necessary for the manifestation and expression of culture. In fact I would argue the potential for expression thrives within an environment where it is understood, that unless overtly forbidden, all is possible. This understanding motivates and encourages more people to participate unlike cultures where unless overtly permitted, activities are understood to be impossible. The value of accessible spaces has been acknowledges by Felix Guattari, in particular those that facilitate the concept of the rift or rupture in this case the utilisation of accessible space for the disruption of pre-existing material whether as a hack or a remix. These practices cause a rupture through the cessation of simple rote repetition, activities so prevalent in open source culture and the digital commons. This disruption becomes a creative process through the provision of space for the expression of culture, by offering an alternative possibility, determined by the individual within a network or a folklore group. Although Guattari discusses this in relation to the value of art practices, I would argue that it also applicable to those spaces and activities present within folkloric practice and the culture of Open Source & Creative Commons that is important. The

perception held by the individuals of their agency within the spaces created affords the creation of what Simon Sullivan calls new affirmation[s] of the world (OSullivan, 2006, P2). Furthermore the activities enacted in these spaces are what Guattari calls fundamental encounters (in OSullivan, 2006 P1), enabling the participant to engage with alternative possibilities that reflect themselves while challenging inherited positions simultaneously. In summary accessible space, allows people to be present, and if motivated they participate, this enables the multiple re-presentations, so important for the expression and manifestation of culture. Accessible spaces whether a folkloric practice or the web / open source encourage people to adopt new habits and roles, as collaborators, distributors, editors and creators (DBR 2009 P7). These activities enable us to create new affirmations and manifestations of our worlds, facilitated and protected in the digital arena by the FLOSS ethos and Creative Commons / copyleft licences. The emergent behaviour that is de and re-territorilisation can be seen as a continual process of becoming and crucially important for an expressive culture, one of the functions of folklore. So when I use the term digital folklore I am not referring to Theresa Heyds definition of Digital Folklore i.e. relating to computer mediated communication e.g. hoax emails or urban legends traceable back to office lore (Giltrow, & Stein 2009 p239). Nor, although related, is it what the editors of the Digital Folklore Reader, define as the customs, traditions and elements of visual, textual and audio culture that emerged from users engagement with personal computer applications during the last decade of the 20th and the first decade of the 21st century. (Lialina and Espenschied 2009 p9). It is in the spaces that it creates, the functions that it serves and the activities that it facilitates that have parallels in much older folkloric practices that extend beyond our digital networked society. Indeed some of our most ancient monuments could be considered as Open Source, collectively built and utilising the technology of the day in the service of expressive culture that arises out of social activity, connection, interaction. People want to do what we have always done connect interact and create this paper acknowledges the continuity between the practices enacted in both material and digital cultures. The Digital Britain Report (2009) and European regulations raise concerns about ownership of the net and the impact on its potential as a common land. Are these new regulations 21st century enclosure acts? If accessible territory is carved up and owned by the few, why should we care? In a world of faux public space, health and safety regulations and security it is necessary to preserve accessible spaces for the expression of culture. Internet regulation, legislation and challenges to Open Source culture could inhibit these expressive practices just as the regulation of folk practices did during the Victorian era or the criminal justice act in the late 90s.

So I think Gerard Winstanleys early idea of common liberty and communal collective production is still a passionately held deep-rooted belief and I would argue for the moment at least, is alive, both on and offline. References Barthes, R (1977) The Death of the Author, Image Music Text New York: Hill and Wang. Duke, J (1967) 1649 An Agreement of the Free People of England Coptic Press London Ed Giltrow, J. & Stein, D(2009) Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre John Benjamin Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philidelphia Ed. Lialina, O and Espenschied, D. (2009) Digital Folklore. To Computer Users, with Love and Respect Merz & Solitude, Stuttgart ed. Prezios,D. (1998/ What is an Author, Foucault, M The History of Art History: A Critical Anthology, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press Samuel, R (1994) Theatres of Memory Vol 1 Past & Present in Contemporary Culture Verso, London, New York OSullivan, S. 2006 Art Encounters Delueze and Guattari Palgrave Macmillan Hampshire, UK. Sahlins, M.D (1985) Islands of History University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Trubshaw, B (2003) Explore Folklore Explore Books Albion Press Loughborough Journals Bascom, W.R. (1954) The Four Functions of Folklore. The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 67, No. 266 (Oct. - Dec., 1954), pp. 333-349 Published by: American Folklore Society Bollier, D. Reclaiming the Commons Boston Review, 2003 Dorson, RM Current Folklore Theories Current Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Feb., 1963), pp. 93-112 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

Hays, D. G. (1992) The Evolution of Expressive Culture Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 15(2): 187-215, 1993. by JAI Press, Inc. Hildyard, N. Hines, C. and . Lang,T. The Ecologist magazine, Vol 26 No 4 July/August 1996, "Who Competes?: Changing Landscapes of Corporate Control,"

Reports Carter, S.A. (2009) Digital Britain Report Accessed 12.6.2010 http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/digitalbritain/report/ Leadbetter, C. (2009) The Digital Revolution : the Coming Crisis of the Creative Class Accessed 15.6.2010 www.charlesledbetter.net