Johannes Bennke and I have been working on an article that seeks to contribute to the conceptualization of protocols in relationship to media theory and political theory. It’s dense, I know, but it has been a rewarding effort for us. I hope some of the theory-heads in the group get something out of it too. This is an early draft, and we’re sharing it with y’all first. Please consider taking a look and sharing your comments in the draft:
Thank you so much for considering this.
Love this! I will put time to go through all of it but a diagonal reading tell me this interesting.
Scanned the abstract, looks very interesting. Will dive in. When do you need feedback by?
One weak suggestion — If it’s not too late, can we try to make protocolic happen instead of protocological? Besides the latter being hard to pronounce, the cueing of proctologist jokes can be a distraction. It’s funny the first time but quickly gets annoying.
Not a crippling concern (about as serious than “Uranus” jokes in Astronomy I guess) but would be a nice bit of discourse denoising if it can be done.
I’m reading some Heidegger tradition stuff and they use ontic and ontological for distinct purposes. So there is some precedent for such a construction. Open to other alternatives too.
I’ll add that folks who were at Edge Esmeralda might recognize the question of “capture” in the paper from the discussion that @nathalias and I led there.
I agree that “protocological” is a bit of a mouthful; one of the virtues and perils of writing in English with a German is that no word is too long:)
I think -ological is closer to our meaning just in that it emphasizes the the abstract logic of protocols, as opposed to the qualities of practice that -olic I think would imply. But we’ll think about this. One way or another it will be a tongue twister.
Thank you for sharing your work.
I believe the concept of prefigurative protocols could potentially strengthen your framework. Prefigurative protocols are designed to steer systems toward a desired future by implementing small, deliberate changes in the present. Through continuous feedback and refinement, governance structures evolve gradually. Establishing mechanisms for small-scale experimentation, for example, would allow participants to engage dynamically with governance and adapt protocols as needed. This gradual, iterative approach to change, I think, aligns with the self-organizing principles you describe while reinforcing the long-term stability and inclusivity of protocological governance.
The concept of a “protocological chiasm” is interesting. Prefigurative protocols could offer a practical means to shape both the abstract and embodied aspects of protocol development. This chiasm framework could help explain how small, intentional changes in protocol design can influence both theoretical and practical aspects, while helping navigate the tension between sovereignty and entanglement.
What stuck out to me was the point about protocols that are not housed within one system, but rather traversing systems while maintaining their sovereignty. This is all well and good assuming that the protocol is doing “good” in the world. But if it’s a malicious protocol, the question then becomes to what extent is it worth it to (a) address the protocol head on, or (b) establish another one that can “crash, hack, or suspend” it as you cited. Protocol wars anyone?
Another aspect I was drawn to was about protocols and culture, being used as a maintenance. You mention indigenous communities. The “concealing protocols” piece was particularly interesting to me as it brought up this concept we have in Haitian culture of “marronage”, the practice of enslaved people escaping from plantations to establish free communities in the mountains. However, it takes on another meaning beyond this historical context, closely aligning with “concealing protocols.” So much so it makes me feel that marronage could be considered localized, culturally appropriate naming for essentially the same concept. In common parlance (and practice), it can be understood as not being forthcoming with one’s intentions, especially as it pertains to outsiders, real or perceived. The manner in which marronage is carried out is also quite performative in nature, further aligning with your points about interaction & enactment as well as supporting your working definition of protocols.
Thanks for sharing this.
Thanks for this @Lenz! It’s absolutely the case that this paper does not really take on normative questions, and we should probably acknowledge this. We don’t take up the question of whether a protocol is good or bad, virulent or liberating. But that’s definitely something I’m trying to figure out how to work through in my broader work, guided by some of the SoP papers.
I love that connections with maroons. It’s absolutely connected. I also talk about marronage in chapter 4 of my book Governable Spaces, especially through the accounts of CLR James and Fred Moten. But I hadn’t thought of its relationship with concealing. The Haitian case reminds me that this is not just about indigeneity but also diaspora (a dynamic I’ve been thinking about a lot in this project). Thank you!
Thank you for your comment @Lenz ! I agree that we need to address ethical and normative issues. To some extent, protocols that traverse more than one system are destined to come into conflict with other protocols. I find this idea very important as well!
Thank you for introducing me to the concept of “marronage”, which I was not familiar with. It is important to place such concepts and practices in a larger context, and protocols could potentially be that. This would not only further elucidate “marronage”, but also help to decolonize protocols. Thank you for that!
Fabulous @ntnsndr! I have been meaning to circle back to your insightful reply. I haven’t tackled CLR James in quite some time and it would do me well to circle back to his works. I am also going to follow up on Fred Moten. So thanks.
Yes, the “New World” certainly has an added layer of complexity when we think through both the indigenous & diasporic aspects, along with their ensuing identies. Religious syncretism alone provides ample fodder for further discussion. Thanks again for this work.
Yes @jobennke this was indeed a point of excitement for me as well - placing “marronage” in a larger context that expands beyond national boundaries. It helps to break out of thinking too myopically & nationalistically.
Just as I’m typing this, the concept of cultural relativism comes to mind - the position that there’s no universal standard from which to measure culture by. I’m curious to what extent protocols that traverse more than one system will be understood within the contexts in which they travel. Will they morph? Shape shift? Perhaps this brings us back to the normative and ethical issues once again. I appreciate that you now have “marronage” as something to consider further as well. Thanks again for this work.