Hi again, Gabi:

To respond to your message part two, I agree that we can't get
anywhere by protest and opposition only. But, I'm guessing that most
of us are trying to make a difference in the places where we reside
or perhaps in other places that are outside of and away from the
UN/WSIS. My feeling is that too many of us, at one time or another,
myself included, have become overly obsessed with the WSIS when it is
not the primary place in which social changes will occur. And it's
not the best place for progressive dialogue--for the latter, I do
things such as stay involved in the CRIS campaign, go to the WSF, try
to do whatever I can to expose the role of IT companies in the
corporatization of development, and work with others in struggling
against the authorities in Cincinnati who are trying to wipe out poor
black neighborhoods and replace them with gentrified homes for
upper-income white people and Cinci cops who seem to want to shoot
every other black male that they see. Too much obsession with the
WSIS can take valuable time away from all of our more grassroots
activities, along with our "global" activities that are far more
progressive than anything that's happening at the UN.

There are times that I think that, at the end of WSIS: The Sequel,
many members of CS will need therapy to wean themselves away from the
"traumatic event":-)

That's why, other than writing quite a lot, "diagnosing the WSIS,"
I've decided to get a jump on things and begin the separation before
the end.

Best,

Lisa


At 2:18 AM +0900 10/11/05, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Dear Lisa- (everyone, you are welcome to join this discussion)
>
>Let me clarify: yes, 'civil society' should be critical and oppositional
>(and wary of being used by neo-liberalism).  But that is not enough. If ALL
>we do is protest and oppose specific issues, we get entirely involved in
>'their' agenda. Obesessed with damage control, we become unable to make
>positive changes, even imagine them.  I know this is hardly an original
>realization, but it is difficult to internalize. To me this WSIS Prepcom3
>drove home what is bad about getting stuck in the "anti-" position in close
>combat: You get as myopic as 'they' want you to be. Many civil society
>groups got pulled into the opression<-->resistance loop, forgetting their
>original purpose. Ironically, a boycott (or a walkout at least) is the only
>thing that may enable people to take off their blinds again.
>
>So: Resistance has to feed into and out of a bigger vision. We have to use
>our critique to become 'less like them.' Unfortunately, many oppositional
>cultures (including many of 'our media') are more hierarchical,
>patriarchial, raked with social injustice than the mainstream culture. I
>think this is not a coincidence.  It is (among other, external factors) a
>symptom of the over-emphasis on resistance at the expense of alternatives.
>
>In many places in 'our media' practice, on the other hand, I see how
>critique can be converted into creativity. Just one example, papertiger's
>best pieces take mainstream TV conventions and turn them inside out. This we
>have to do in theory and in policy intervention too: learn through
>critiquing and opposing, and use that as material to build our alternatives.
>
>
>Gabi
>
>
>PS: I would love to see that first draft of the CIVIL SOCIETY declaration
>(Is it to be found online? Do you have the text? I worked on the final
>version, trying to put a few sharper edges back in :-) ).
>
>
>------ Forwarded Message
>>  From: Lisa McLaughlin <[log in to unmask]>
>>  Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>>  Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 13:16:04 -0400
>>  To: [log in to unmask]
>>  Subject: Re: More thoughts on WSIS 2 (Communica-ch, Community media)
>>
>>  In many respects, the WSIS has been a farce from the beginning. For
>>  example, there is the notion that there could be a "common vision" of
>>  the information society, that a "win-win" situation might arise from
>>  "multi-stakeholder" relationships among civil society, governments
>  > and the private sector under conditions of neoliberalism, that civil
>>  society would participate on an "equal footing," etc. Additionally,
>>  as some of us who are WSIS "old-timers" may recall the various
>>  "families" were imposed upon us by the CS Secretariat, and several of
>>  these do not fit any definition of civil society: for example, local
>>  government authorities, which were put into CS because they didn't
>>  have any other place to put them, media lobbyists like the World
>>  Press Freedom Committee, and perhaps most of all, the biggest joke,
>>  the "multi-stakeholder" family, which effectively allowed those from
>>  governments and the private sector to be members of CS. Of course,
>>  that was on top of the plethora of BINGOS and GRINGOS that were
>>  hastily put together by the private sector and governments. The
>>  "multi-stakeholder family" largely was a project of persons who had
>>  ideological, and often, personal and selfish reasons to be in a
>>  family that could not be defined as oppositional to neoliberalism
>>  (that is, they are looking to be paid consultants, etc. to business
>>  and government).
>>
>>  Although I was ready to give Tunis a chance, the deterioration of an
>>  already deplorable human rights record, in addition to the behavior
>  > of persons representing Ben Ali during the prepcoms, has led me to
>>  take the personal position that I will not support any of this or the
>>  above by going to Tunis. The UN should be imposing sanctions on the
>>  country (and perhaps on the US as well), not holding summits there.
>>  Moreover, the summit will not be worthwhile if members of grassroots
>>  and small CS organizations cannot attend, and most cannot attend
>>  because Tunisia didn't come through with the money to assist those
>>  with low-incomes. I doubt that they ever intended to do so. As "head
>>  of delegation" for Union for Democratic Communications, I will
>>  continue to register our members if they want to go because I'm the
>>  only one who can do that. But, I am boycotting the Tunis summit, and
>>  I hope that others will do the same. All of the real action happens
>>  at the prepcoms anyway, and these have been disasters during this
>>  phase, as might have been predicted.
>>
>>  In any case, every single UN conference to date has yielded grand
>>  declarations of principles and plans of action but, in fact, has been
>>  followed by almost no meaningful action (see Fourth World Conference
>>  in Beijing).
>>
>>  One last note: with all due respect to Gabi, whose opinions I share
>>  in many ways, civil society is supposed to be oppositional.
>>  Therefore, I don't understand how protest and resistance becomes a
>>  problem for civil society (unless we look at the protest and
>>  resistance of the embedded Tunis detractors). Sometimes, exclusion,
>>  whether self-imposed or imposed on us, can help to create an
>>  oppositional civil society. In my view, one of the problems that has
>>  plagued WSIS over the past few years is that many of the "leaders"
>>  have been too acquiescent (you should have seen the first draft of
>>  the CS "alternative declaration" written by about half a dozen of us,
>>  which had a clear critical edge compared to the watered down one that
>>  finally came to represent "us," refusing to mention the word
>>  "neoliberalism," etc.).
>>
>>  Under these circumstances, I'm thinking that the notion of working on
>>  our own agendas should involve maintaining an oppositional
>>  stance--that is, until the other two "stakeholders" stop trying to
>>  instrumentalize CS for purposes of neoliberalism (the latter being
>>  the working definition of multi-stakeholderism at the moment).
>>
>>  Regards,
>>
>>  Lisa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  At 1:34 AM +0900 10/6/05, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>  ----------------------------------------------
>>>  Disruption of communica-ch meeting
>>>  http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/795.htm
>>>  ----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>  Relatively typical example of the Tunisification of the UN. Special only
>>>  because it shows a WSIS secretariat official participating in disruption,
>>>  not just the usual trouble-makers.
>>>  video  http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_en/Moncef_Achour_prepcom3.AVI
>  >> Download letter to secretariat for detailed account.
>>>
>>>  I gather this meeting was held privately because the human rights caucus
>>>  could not meet publicly without participants getting personally attacked.
>>>
>>>  --------------------------------------------------
>>>  Community Media Working Group Meetings impossible
>>>  --------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>  The community media working group is the only (if narrow) platform for 'our
>>>  media' type organizations at the WSIS, and has been rather successful in
>>>  pushing community radio so far (coordination list:
>>>  http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cm).
>>>
>>>  However, it cannot meet anymore, as the convenor is being followed and
>>>  hassled for his open criticism of the host government. An attempted meeting
>>>  at PrepCom3 was flooded with people who admitted to knowing nothing about
>>>  community media (They thought "community" referred to "European
>>>Community"!)
>>>  But they refused to leave, and continued talking loudly and off-topic. (The
>>>  same people and techniques as in most other civil society meetings.)
>>>
>>>  --------------------------------------------
>>>  Should we fight united with 'their media' ?
>>>  --------------------------------------------
>  >>
>>>  Under these circumstances, strange bedfellowships emerge:
>>>
>>>  http://campaigns.ifex.org/tmg/news.html
>>>
>>>  'Their media'  (including our traditional non-friends, the world press
>>>  freedom committee) and 'our' community media champion AMARC fight together
>>>  for "freedom of expression" in the host country.
>>>
>>>  Forgotten the battle fought in the media caucus until recently: 'their
>>>  freedom' vs 'ours,' corporate rights vs communication rights,
>>>their media vs
>>>  ours. Perhaps not a bad thing to fight together against censorship? An
>>>  important strategic alliance? If the fight is won and this authoritarian
>>>  government eases up on censorship and media control, perhaps the corporate
>>>  media and professional journalists will remember us as friends and fighters
>>>  for a common cause? This seems to be the AMARC strategy. Though history
>>>  gives us little reason for optimism...
>>>
>>>  So back to square one, the freedom of journalists and private media? And
>>>  hope we will get a slice of the freedom pie later? There has to be a better
>>>  way.
>>>
>>>  We started to revive the discussion on the role of our media in a renewed
>>>  media democratization agenda. Let's continue this overdue task in the
>>>  ourmedia network.
>>>
>>>  Gabi
>>
>>
>>  --
>>  Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D.
>>  Associate Professor, Mass Communication & Women's Studies
>>  Editor, Feminist Media Studies
>>  Director of Graduate Studies, M.A. Program in Mass Communication
>>  Union for Democratic Communications Representative,
>>  World Summit on the Information Society
>>
>>  Mass Communication
>>  Williams Hall
>>  Miami University-Ohio
>>  Oxford, OH 45056
>>  USA
>>  Tele: 513-529-3547
>>  Fax: 513-529-1835
>
>------ End of Forwarded Message


--
Lisa McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Mass Communication & Women's Studies
Editor, Feminist Media Studies
Director of Graduate Studies, M.A. Program in Mass Communication
Union for Democratic Communications Representative,
World Summit on the Information Society

Mass Communication
Williams Hall
Miami University-Ohio
Oxford, OH 45056
USA
Tele: 513-529-3547
Fax: 513-529-1835