Abstract: To say something is complex can often be conclusive. It can mean that an issue or an idea is too difficult to explain or understand, or has too many aspects to examine clearly. In many ways the designation “complex” can be an abdication, an end to an argument or discussion. An epochal change in thinking about complexity dates from post structuralist challenges to the idea that the world was known by arguing that everything was indeed much more complex than master narratives would suggest. In the last decade a social scientific engagement with complexity theory has meant that social and cultural meanings of “complex” and “complexity” are being explored. “Complex” has also made a renaissance within the popular and everyday imagination. Reference to “complex” and “complexity” can be found in advertising campaigns for Sydney City Rail (Figure 1), as well as advertising for a telecommunication company (Figure 2). Figure 1 Figure 2 In our feature article Bob Hodge provides a detailed analysis of Sydney City Rail’s “Rail Clearways” advertising campaign. In a comparable campaign, a telecommunications company claims “Simplicity trumps Complexity”. It seems that advertisers will call any networking system “complex” because its binary is “simple”, from the Latin simplex. Simple versus Complex creates a nice image of a telecommunication company possessing a SIMPLE solution for any COMPLEX networking system. “Simplicity trumps Complexity” denotes a competition between the two meanings and a “simple” solution for “complex” networking needs can be found within this company’s product portfolio. Rather than position “complex” in competition with “simple”, we wanted to explore the possibilities of “complex”. The idea of “complex” as a beginning, not a conclusion, has been the driving concept behind this journal edition. This M/C Journal edition assembles seemingly disparate interpretations of “complex”. We did not want to reduce a journal edition on “complex” into “simple” neat links. Instead, we have grouped the articles together under four titles: “‘Complex’ and Affect: Complexities in the Concept of Love”, “Situating ‘Complex’ within Fixed Social and Cultural Systems”, “Positioning ‘Complex’ in Cultural Theories” and “Locating ‘Complex’ in Design”. This thematic arrangement demonstrates how each interpretation of “complex” forms assemblages and from this other assemblages can be formed. Such an approach reveals the way in which “complex” entities emerge from “complex” processes. Our feature article, “The Complexity Revolution”, outlines and categorises complex(ity) in its varying forms. Bob Hodge positions complex(ity) in popular culture, science and humanities. Complex(ity)’s popular meaning reduces the concept to something that is intricate, involved, complicated or multi-dimensional. In a more negative sense complex(ity) is often stripped to simplicity. This article decodes Sydney City Rail’s “Rail Clearways” publicity campaign “untangling our complex rail network” to illustrate how complex(ity) is not reducible to simplicity, it is not strictly a positive or a negative but encompasses many meanings located with popular culture, science and humanities. “Complex” and Affect: Complexities in the Concept of Love “The Heart of the Matter” positions romantic love as productive force and explores the complexity that lies within the notions of love and desire. Richard Carpenter examines why romantic love is so complex by exploring its development from a romantic ideal to encorporating notions of desire. Carpenter explores the move from love as fusion, encapsulated by the movie Jerry Maguire (“you complete me”), to Anthony Gidden’s “plastic sexuality” where desire is detached from reproductive imperatives. It is not that we have moved past romantic love, Carpenter argues, but that we should explore the complex range of possibilities created by its productive force. Adding to this exploration of love’s complexities, Glen Fuller uses the film Punch Drunk Love to illustrate the contingent nature of contemporary romance. Inspired by a conversation with a woman who claims “everyone does rsvp” this paper probes the very notion of love by relating the experiences of the film’s lead characters, Barry and Lisa, to theories by Badio and Deleuze. The continual striving for an elusive harmony is presented as the materiality of love; reconciling love’s contradictions by suggesting it is the problematic nature of romance that elicits the “wonder at the heart of love”. Situating “Complex” within Fixed Social and Cultural Processes Mario Lopez’s article explores contemporary Japanese-Philippine relations through an ethnographic study in Japan on marriages between Japanese men and Filipino women. In this article, he focuses on one aspect of his research: Filipino women attending a ‘care-giver’ course and the outcomes. Japan’s aging society and a shortage of labour in Health Care Facilities has sparked an effort by the Japanese State to source and educate Filipino women to fill the labour void. “Bride to Care Worker” outlines how Filipino women are located within a complex system of nation-state relations. It has become common to claim that we live within a culture of fear and a by-product of this is increased surveillance technologies. “Commodifying Terrorism” explores London’s Metropolitan Police use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras to monitor and control public spaces. Yasmin Ibrahim examines how surveillance systems like CCTV locate the body and its everyday actions as stored data in an effort to “combat” terrorism and make public spaces “safer”. The ramifications are that it constructs and supports new power relationships and new risk hierarchies; raising questions of how surveillance technologies are making us safer. In “Decisions on Fire” Valerie Ingham asserts one thought process or model cannot encompass the complex decisions made on the fire-ground. Ingham argues incident commanders use “Multimodal Decision Making” a term that she developed from her ethnographic research with fire-fighters. “Multimodal Decision Making” illustrates how sensorial awareness and experiential knowledge is used when assessing and recommending a course of action to fight fires. Positioning “Complex” in Cultural Theories Sarah James examines one mural, from one street in San Francisco’s, predominantly Mexican, Mission District. She assesses how it is symbolic of complex assemblages denoting a diasporic community, post colonial histories and cultural hybridity. “Culture and Complexity: Graffiti on a San Francisco Streetscape” argues complexity theories can extend and contribute to established concepts in humanities such as post colonialism and cultural hybridity. Karen Cham and Jeffrey Johnson argue that complex systems are cultural systems. They trace the developments within interactive digital media and industry design practice to illustrate the relationship between art and complex systems. This relationship is epitomised by the possibilities inherent within interactive media for experimentation and innovation. Drawing on post-structural, science and art theory, Cham and Johnson suggest that digital mediums serve as a model that highlights the nature of complex adaptive systems. Locating “Complex” in Design A labyrinth epitomises complexity in design with its numerous choices of pathways and directions. In “A Vision of Complex Symmetry”, Ilana Shiloh applies a complexity perspective to the Coen Brothers’ neo-noir film The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001) by arguing its symbolic relationship to a labyrinth. Shiloh uses the labyrinth as a metaphor to highlight the difference between rationalistic genre in detective fiction in which complexity is simplified by the work of the detective to film noir in which the audience is taken deeper into the labyrinthine maze of a story where little makes sense and nothing is what it seems. Vince Dziekan’s curatorial project during his recent “Remote” exhibition inspired his interactive piece for our journal edition. In his paper Dziekan’s explores the creative process behind curatorship, presenting it as a design process which adds levels of complexity to the experience of the gallery space. By creating an interactive element to his work, Dziekan’s draws the reader into the experience of curatorial design, using layers of black, magenta, cyan and yellow. Each colour represents an aspect of design: the ‘black’ layer is a synopsis of curatorial design and complexity, the article is situated within the four magenta layers, the cyan layer provides a visual experience of the exhibition and the yellow layer embodies Marcel Duchamp’s “Mile of String”. Dziekan’s work is symbolic of “complex” representing layers of concepts each interacting, reflecting and affecting the other. Through these papers this journal edition presents an exploration of the idea of “complex”. A complex “revolution” (in a quiet way) infuses the vast range of topics by adding depth to challenge all types of research. This journal, in keeping with the idea of complex, illustrates the possibilities from which to start/continue in an effort to expand rather than limit the possibilities of further explorations of “complex”. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Cahir, Jayde, and Sarah James. "Complex." M/C Journal 10.3 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0706/00-editorial.php 〉 . APA Style Cahir, J., and S. James. (Jun. 2007) "Complex," M/C Journal, 10(3). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0706/00-editorial.php 〉 .

Abstract: "You could think of our kind of scholarship," he said, "as something like 'slow food' in a fast-food culture."— Ivan Kreilkamp, co-editor of Victorian Studies(Chronicle of Higher Education, March 2009) John Hartley’s entertaining and polemical defense of a disappearing art form (the print copy journal designed to be ripped eagerly from its envelope and read from cover to cover like a good book) came my way via the usual slightly disconcerting M/C Journal overture: I believe that your research interests and background make you a potential expert reviewer of the manuscript, "LAMENT FOR A LOST RUNNING ORDER? OBSOLESCENCE AND ACADEMIC JOURNALS," which has been submitted to the '' [sic] issue of M/C Journal. The submission's extract is inserted below, and I hope that you will consider undertaking this important task for us. Automated e-mails like these keep strange company, with reminders about overdue library items and passwords about to expire. Inevitably their tone calls to mind the generic flattery of the internet scam that announces foreign business opportunities or an unexpectedly large windfall from a deceased relative. At face value, this e-mail confirms John Hartley’s suspicions about the personalised craft of journal curation. Journal editing, he implies, is going the way of drywalling and smithying—by the time we realise these ancient and time-intensive skills have been lost, it’ll be too late. The usual culprit is to the fore—the internet—and the risk presented by obsolescence is very significant. At stake is the whole rich and messy infrastructure of academic professional identity: scholarly communication, goodwill, rank, trust, service to peers, collegiality, and knowledge itself. As a time-poor reader of journals both online and in print I warmed to this argument, and enjoyed reading about the particularities of journal editing: the cultivation and refinement of a specialised academic skill set involving typefaces, cover photographs and running order. Journal editors are our creative directors. Authors think selfishly and not always consistently about content, position and opportunity, but it’s the longer term commitment of editors to taking care of their particular shingle in the colourful and crowded bazaar of scholarly publishing, that keeps the market functioning in a way that also works for inspectors and administrators. Thinking of all the print journals I’ve opened and shut and put on shelves (sometimes still in their wrappers) and got down again, and photocopied, and forgotten about, I realised that I do retain a dim sense of their look and shape, and that in practical ways this often helps me remember what was in them. Nevertheless, even having been through the process he describes, whereby “you have to log on to some website and follow prompts in order to contribute both papers and the assessment of papers; interactions with editors are minimal,” I came to the conclusion that he had underestimated the human in the practice of refereeing. I wasn’t sure made me an expert reviewer for this piece, except perhaps that in undertaking the review itself I was practising a kind of expertise that entitled me to reflect on what I was doing. So as a way of wrestling with the self-referentiality of the process of providing an anonymous report on an article whose criticism of blind refereeing I shared, I commented on the corporeality and collegiality of the practice: I knew who I was writing about (and to), and I was conscious of both disagreeing and wondering how to avoid giving offence. I was also cold in my office, and wondering about a coffee. “I suspect the cyborg reviewer is (like most cyborgs) a slightly romantic, or at least rhetorical, fantasy,” I added, a bit defensively. “Indeed, the author admits to practising editorship via a form of human intersubjectivity that involves email, so the mere fact that the communication in some cases is via a website doesn’t seem to render the human obsolete.” The cyborg reviewer wasn’t the only thing bothering me about the underlying assumptions concerning electronic scholarly publishing, however. The idea that the electronic disaggregation of content threatens the obsolescence of the print journal and its editor is a little disingenuous. Keyword searches do grab articles independently of issues, it’s true, but it’s a stretch to claim that this functionality is what’s turning diligent front-to-back readers and library flaneurs into the kinds of online mercenaries we mean when we say “users”. Quite the opposite: journal searches are highly seductive invitations to linger and explore. Setting out from the starting point of a single article, readers can now follow a citation trail, or chase up other articles by the same author or on similar topics, all the while keeping in plain sight the running order that was designed by the editors as an apt framework for the piece when it first appeared. Journal publishers have the keenest investment in nurturing the distinctive brand of each of their titles, and as a result the journal name is never far from view. Even the cover photo and layout is now likely to be there somewhere, and to crop up often as readers retrace their steps and set out again in another direction. So to propose that online access makes the syntactical form of a journal issue irrelevant to readers is to underestimate both the erotics of syntax, and the capacity of online readers to cope with a whole new libidinous economy of searching characterised by multiple syntactical options. And if readers are no longer sequestered within the pages of an individual hard copy journal—there really is a temptation to mention serial monogamy here—their freedom to operate more playfully only draws attention to the structural horizontalities of the academic public sphere, which is surely the basis of our most durable claims to profess expertise. Prec isely because we are hyperlinked together across institutions and disciplines, we can justly argue that we are perpetually peer-reviewing each other, in a fairly disinterested fashion, and no longer exclusively in the kinds of locally parochial clusters that have defined (and isolated) the Australian academy. So although disaggregation irritates journal editors, a more credible risk to their craft comes from the disintermediation of scholarly communication that is one of the web’s key affordances. The shift towards user generated content, collaboratively generated, openly accessible and instantly shareable across many platforms, does make traditional scholarly publishing, with its laborious insistence on double blind refereeing, look a bit retro. How can this kind of thing not become obsolete given how long it takes for new ideas to make their way into print, what with all that courtly call and response between referees, editors and authors, and the time consumed in arranging layout and running order and cover photos?  Now that the hegemons who propped up the gold standard journals are blogging and podcasting their ideas, sharing their bookmarks, and letting us know what they’re doing by the hour on Twitter, with presumably no loss of quality to their intellectual presence, what kind of premium or scarcity value can we place on the content they used to submit to print and online journals?  So it seems to me that the blogging hegemon is at least as much of a problem for the traditional editor as the time challenged browser hoping for a quick hit in a keyword search. But there are much more complicated reasons why the journal format itself is not at risk, even from www.henryjenkins.org. Indeed, new “traditional” journals are being proposed and launched all the time. The mere award of an A* for the International Journal of Cultural Studies in the Australian journal rankings  (Australian Research Council) confirms that journals are persistently evaluated in their own right, that the brand of the aggregating instrument still outranks the bits and pieces of disaggregated content, and that the relative standing of different journals depends precisely on the quantification of difficulty in meeting the standards (or matching the celebrity status) of their editors, editorial boards and peer reviewing panels. There’s very little indication in this process that either editors or reviewers are facing obsolescence; too many careers still depend on their continued willingness to stand in the way of the internet’s capacity to let anyone have a go at presenting ideas and research in the public domain. As the many inputs to the ERA exercise endlessly, and perhaps a bit tediously, confirmed, it’s the reputation of editors and their editorial practices that signals the exclusivity of scholarly publishing: in the era of wikis and blogs, an A* journal is one club that’s not open to all. Academia 1.0 is resilient for all these straightforward reasons. Not only in Australia, tenure and promotion depend on it. As a result, since the mid 1990s, editors, publishers, librarians and other stakeholders in scholarly communication have been keeping a wary eye on the pace and direction of change to either its routines or its standards. Their consistent attention has been on the proposition the risk comes from something loosely defined as “digital”. But as King, Tenopir and Clark point out in their study of journal readership in the sciences, the relevance of journal content itself has been extensively disputed and investigated across the disciplines since the 1960s. Despite the predictions of many authors in the 1990s that electronic publishing and pre-publishing would challenge the professional supremacy of the print journal, it seems just as likely that the simple convenience of filesharing has made more vetted academic material available, more easily, to more readers. As they note in a waspish foonote, even the author of one of the most frequently cited predictions that scholarly journals were on the way out had to modify his views,  “perhaps due to the fact that his famous 1996 [sic] article "Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholarly Journals" has had thousands of hits or downloads on his server alone.” (King et al,; see also Odlyzko, " Tragic Loss" and "Rapid Evolution"). In other words, all sides now seem to agree that “digital” has proved to be both opportunity and threat to scholarly publication. Odlyzko’s prediction of the disappearance of the print journal and its complex apparatus of self-perpetuation was certainly premature in 1996. So is John Hartley right that it’s time to ask the question again?  Earlier this year, the Chronicle of Higher Education’s article “Humanities Journals Confront Identity Crisis”, which covered much of the same ground, generated brisk online discussion among journal editors in the humanities (Howard; see also the EDITOR-L listserv archive). The article summarised the views of a number of editors of “traditional” journals, and offset these with the views of a group representing the Council of Editors of Learned Journals, canvassing the possibility that scholarly publishing could catch up to the opportunities that we tend to shorthand as “web 2.0”. The short-lived CELJ blog discussion led by Jo Guldi in February 2009 proposed four principles we might expect to shape the future of scholarly publishing in the humanities: technical interoperability, which is pretty uncontroversial; the expansion of scholarly curation to a role in managing and making sense of “the noise of the web”; diversification of content types and platforms; and a more inclusive approach to the contribution of non-academic experts. (Guldi et al.) Far from ceding the inexorability of their own obsolescence, the four authors of this blog (each of them journal editors) have re-imagined the craft of editing, and have drafted an amibitious but also quite achievable manifesto for the renovation of scholarly communication. This is focused on developing a new and more confident role for the academy in the next phase of the development of the knowledge-building capacity of the web. Rather than confining themselves to being accessed only by their professional peers (and students) via university libraries in hardcopy or via institutional electronic subscription, scholars should be at the forefront of the way knowledge is managed and developed in the online public sphere. This would mean developing metrics that worked as well for delicious and diigo as they do for journal rankings; and it would mean a more upfront contribution to quality assurance and benchmarking of information available on the web, including information generated from outside the academy. This resonates with John Hartley’s endorsement of wiki-style open refereeing, which as an idea contains a substantial backwards nod to Ginsparg’s system of pre-publication of the early 1990s (see Ginsparg). It also suggests a more sophisticated understanding of scholarly collaboration than the current assumption that this consists exclusively of a shift to multiply-authored content, the benefit of which has tended to divide scholars in the humanities (Young). But it was not as a reviewer or an author that this article really engaged me in thinking about the question of human obsolescence. Recently I’ve been studying the fragmentation, outsourcing and automation of work processes in the fast food industry or, as it calls itself, the Quick Service Restaurant trade. I was drawn into this study by thinking about the complex reorganisation of time and communication brought about by the partial technologisation of the McDonalds drive-thru in Australia. Now that drive-thru orders are taken through a driveway speaker, the order window (and its operator) have been rendered obsolete, and this now permanently closed window is usually stacked high with cardboard boxes. Although the QSR industry in the US has experimented with outsourcing ordering to call centres at other locations (“May I take your order?”), in Australia the ta sk itself has simply been added to the demands of customer engagement at the paying window, with the slightly odd result that the highest goal of customer service at this point is to be able to deal simultaneously with two customers at two different stages of the drive-thru process—the one who is ordering three Happy Meals and a coffee via your headset, and the one who is sitting in front of you holding out money—without offending or confusing either. This formal approval of a shift from undivided customer attention to the time-efficiency of multitasking is a small but important reorientation of everyday service culture, making one teenager redundant and doubling the demands placed on the other. The management of quick service restaurant workers and their productivity offers us a new perspective on the pressures we are experiencing in the academic labour market. Like many of my colleagues, I have been watching with a degree of ambivalence the way in which the national drive to quantify excellence in research in Australia has resulted in some shallow-end thinking about how to measure what it is that scholars do, and how to demonstrate that we are doing it competitively. Our productivity is shepherded by the constant recalibration of our workload, conceived as a bundle of discrete and measurable tasks, by anxious institutions trying to stay ahead in the national game of musical chairs, which only offers a limited number of seats at the research table—while still keeping half an eye on their enterprise bargaining obligations. Or, as the Quick Service Restaurant sector puts it: Operational margins are narrowing. While you need to increase the quality, speed and accuracy of service, the reality is that you also need to control labor costs. If you reduce unnecessary labor costs and improve workforce productivity, the likelihood of expanding your margins increases. Noncompliance can cost you. (Kronos) In their haste to increase quality, speed and accuracy of academic work, while lowering labor costs and fending off the economic risk of noncompliance, our institutions have systematically overlooked the need to develop meaningful ways to accommodate the significant scholarly work of reading, an activity that takes real time, and that in its nature is radically incompatible with the kinds of multitasking we are all increasingly using to manage the demands placed on us. Without a measure of reading, we fall back on the exceptionally inadequate proxy of citation. As King et al. point out, citation typically skews towards a small number of articles, and the effect of using this as a measure of reading is to suggest that the majority of articles are never read at all. Their long-term studies of what scientists read, and why, have been driven by the need to challenge this myth, and they have demonstrated that while journals might not be unwrapped and read with quite the Christmas-morning eagerness that John Hartley describes, their content is eventually read more than once, and often more than once by the same person. Both electronic scholarly publishing, and digital redistribution of material original published in print, have greatly assisted traditional journals in acquiring something like the pass-on value of popular magazines in dentists’ waiting rooms. But for all this to work, academics have to be given time to sit and read, and as it would be absurd to try to itemise and remunerate this labour specifically, then this time needs to be built into the normative workload for anyone who is expected to engage in any of the complex tasks involved in the collaborative production of knowledge. With that in mind, I concluded my review on what I hoped was a constructive note of solidarity. “What’s really under pressure here—forms of collegiality, altruism and imaginative contributions to a more outward-facing type of scholarship—is not at risk from search engines, it seems to me. What is being pressured into obsolescence, risking subscriptions to journals as much as purchases of books, is the craft and professional value placed on reading. This pressure is not coming from the internet, but from all the other bureaucratic rationalities described in this paper, that for the time being do still value journals selectively above other kinds of public contribution, but fail to appreciate the labour required to make them appear in any form, and completely overlook the labour required to absorb their contents and respond.” For obvious reasons, my warm thanks are due to John Hartley and to the two editors of this M/C Journal issue for their very unexpected invitation to expand on my original referee’s report.References Australian Research Council. “The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative: Journal Lists.” 2009. 3 July 2009 ‹http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_journal_list.htm›. Ginsparg, Paul. “Can Peer Review be Better Focused?” 2003. 1 July 2009 ‹http://people.ccmr.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/blurb/pg02pr.html›. Guldi, Jo, Michael Widner, Bonnie Wheeler, and Jana Argersinger. The Council of Editors of Learned Journals Blog. 2009. 1 July 2009 ‹http://thecelj.blogspot.com›. Howard, Jennifer. “Humanities Journals Confront Identity Crisis.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 27 Mar. 2009. 1 July 2009 ‹http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i29/29a00102.htm›. King, Donald, Carol Tenopir, and Michael Clarke. "Measuring Total Reading of Journal Articles." D-Lib Magazine 12.10 (2006). 1 July 2009 ‹http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october06/king/10king.html›. Kronos Incorporated. “How Can You Reduce Your Labor Costs without Sacrificing Speed of Service?” (2009). 1 July 2009 ‹http://www.qsrweb.com/white_paper.php?id=1738 & download=1›.“May I Take Your Order? Local McDonald's Outsources to a Call Center.” Billings Gazette, Montana, 5 July 2006. SharedXpertise Forum. 1 July 2009 ‹http://www.sharedxpertise.org/file/3433/mcdonalds-outsourcing-to-call-center.html›.Odlyzko, Andrew. “The Rapid Evolution of Scholarly Publishing.” Learned Publishing 15.1 (2002): 7-19. ———. “Tragic Loss or Good Riddance? The Impending Demise of Traditional Scholarly Journals.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 42 (1995): 71-122. Young, Jeffrey. “Digital Humanities Scholars Collaborate More on Journal Articles than 'Traditional' Researchers.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 27 April 2009. 1 July 2009 ‹http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/3736/digital-humanities-scholars-collaborate-more-on-journal-articles-than-on-traditional-researchers›.

Abstract: Was it seven or eight summers ago, when the sun first became our enemy and set our skin on fire? We find it now in the normality of strange weather and the telescoping of the seasons; wherein it’s 27 degrees and there are no leaves yet on the trees, a hot August day in April. We watch the media spectacles of monster storms and mud slides that arrive with increasing force and frequency. And we despair over the death of the Polar bears, starving because the Arctic sea-ice upon which they catch seals can no longer bear their weight. Up there, we hear, the permafrost is melting, and the Inuit of Baffin Island are witnessing thunder and lightning for the first time in their lives. Down here, along the southern border of Canada, we are just beginning to feel the fear in our guts. The ambivalence and discomfort which we may feel about these changes – whose effects are as intimate as they are remote – speak to a more subtle perception that everything has now come undone: realigned and re-made by forces beyond our control, and yet, of our own making. That significant futurity which was once the sine qua non of a rational modernity – the self-confident assurance that things can only get better and never worse – has fallen to the wayside of our collective memory, useful now only for the purposes of Hallmark greeting cards. As usual, we suffer from a failure of imagination, wherein the only facts worth knowing become unspeakable, verboten vulgarities never to be uttered out-loud in polite company. What accounts for this silence? While we may increasingly feel that something is amiss in the world, this experience is not authorised or legitimated by the propositions of commercial media or conventional thought. What are the social consequences of this gap between the corporeal experience of global warming and its public representation? Can such affectual experience be mined as a means to advocate social change? In Canadian and American commercial media, discussion of “global warming” is still largely absent (Ungar; Weingart, Engels and Pansegrau). When the hurricanes Katrina and Rita whirled into Level 5 status across the very hot waters of the Gulf of Mexico this Fall, mention of global warming was quickly flicked away as a minor irritant. Such omissions are not surprising, given the political economy of American media. The automobile industry spends US$3 billion out of a total of US$9 billion annual expenditures of all advertising on network television. Not one of these ads is for hybrid cars. It is also our idea of nature that allows us to relegate matters of the environment to the periphery of our concerns. In its more piously Wordsworthian vestiges, nature is deemed as self-evident and unaltered by the ravages of time. It’s this temporal stasis attributed to nature that allows us to absolve ourselves from its fate. Nature, after all, is the non-human. And while the argument that only humans make history – that only humans transform and innovate themselves and their environment and manipulate the dimensions of time – can be recognised as a neat piece of social construction built in the interests of human conquest, we are still reticent to acknowledge nature on its own terms. Val Plumwood has argued that, “if the category of ‘nature’ is seen as phony, if it can only appear when suitably surrounded by scare quotes, [then] we are less likely to be inspired by appeals to nature’s integrity in [it’s defence] ” (3). Somehow, believing in nature slides into an unseemly essentialism or a fetishistic form of love. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that so many people do not feel compelled to come to nature’s defense. Survey research from the United States, published in 2000 and 2003, shows that while 90% of Americans have now heard of global warming and believe it’s an important issue, a much smaller percentage are actually concerned about it (Stamm, Clark and Eblacas; Leiserowitz). Other matters such as employment, the economy and the rising costs of housing take priority over environmental issues. Furthermore, the research finds that while espousing environmental values, only a small percentage of respondents would self-identify as “environmentalist”. While being pro-environment is perceived as “having good character”, having too much of this good character is a bad thing. Still, can’t they feel what’s going on? Certainly here on the coast of British Columbia, where rainforests still run along the ocean’s edge, something has changed. Nothing is quite as ‘temperate’ as it once was. The weather shifts unexpectedly and dramatically, and the summers have become too hot and too dry. Global warming has brought a new atmosphere to the forests, as if under all this unfamiliar dryness and dust a latent extinction is beginning to stir. This current prospect – the death of not just a million species of plant and animal life (Kirby), but of countless human lives – may be redirecting our attention now to the interdependent relation, the fluid interchanges, between human and non-human worlds. This deadly probability may engender a new vitality, new ways of feeling life. “Nature”, as Michel Serres puts it, “is reminding us of its existence” (29). The challenge posed by this recognition prohibits the perception of nature in static terms, as a commodity or as handy oubliette for societal debris. In so doing, feeling the life of nature allows consideration of the ways in which nature and human culture have long been wedded to one another, not just in terms of the semiotic operations of a binarism, but as a complex and reciprocal project of interdependent life. Recognition of the interdependence of human and non-human life may also entail a particular affectual sensibility – a means of feeling life as it resonates against our skin and fills our senses. In this moment, “everything that is, resounds”. Here, “the sense and recognisability of things … do not lie in conceptual categories in which we mentally place them, but in their positions and orientations which our postures address” (Lingus 59). It’s not a question then of what nature means to us, but does nature do with us? How does it make us feel? Emotion has remained discursively submerged in discussions of climate change, not only because the stakes are such that only the scientists, with their particular authority and legitimacy, are afforded a voice, but also because it threatens the legitimacy of a formal rationalist representation of nature which excludes the non-human from the purview of ethical consideration. An affectual relationship to the natural world does have its difficulties. “Feeling nature” is based upon some sort of understanding with it, a form of competency, of ‘knowing your way around’. Such knowledges are often bound by class: the privileged remit of the romantic individual in search of an authentic experience, or the uncomfortable locale of hard and often violent labour. Still, it is in feeling the shrinking of life into the shadows of an uncommon heat that we may use this sentience to good effect. In his book The Natural Contract, Michel Serres argues that, “through exclusively social contracts, we have abandoned the bond that connects us to the world. … What language do the things of the world speak that we might come to an understanding of them contractually? … In fact, the Earth speaks to us in terms of forces, bonds and interactions … each of the partners in symbiosis thus owes … life to the other, on pain of death” (39). Long ago, when we were young, many of us made good money working in the coastal forest of British Columbia – either cutting it or milling it or planting it. I was alone there once for 6 weeks and was haunted daily by a raven who would track my movements through the trees, muttering incantations and clicks. By the time I walked out of the woods I was nearly speechless and it took me weeks to recover the easy cultural behaviour that came so naturally before. A friend of mine once had the job of getting rid of the young poplar and alder trees that colonise the logging slash. His task was to “cut and squirt”: to slash the trees with a machete and squirt poison inside the cut. Maybe it was a bad case of anthropomorphism, or maybe it was the drugs, but to this day, he swears he could hear the trees scream. References Kirby, Alex. “Climate Risk to Million Species.” BBC News Online, U.K. Edition, 7 Jan. 2004. Leiserowitz, A. American Opinions on Global Warming: Project Results. Eugene: U of Oregon, 2003. Lingus, Alphonso. The Imperitive. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1998. Plumwood, Val. “Nature as Agency and the Prospects for a Progressive Naturalism.” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 4 (2001): 3-32. Serres, Michel. The Natural Contract. (Trans. E. MacArthur and W. Paulson), Ann Arbor: Michigan UP, 1995. Stamm, K.R., F. Clark and P.R. Eblacas. “Mass Communication and Public Understanding of Environmental Problems: The Case of Global Warming.” Public Understanding of Science 9 (2000): 219-37. Ungar, S. “Is Strange Weather in the Air?: A Study of U.S. National News Coverage of Extreme Weather Events.” Climatic Change 41 (1999): 133-50. Weingart, P.A., A. Engels and P. Pansegrau. “Risks of Communication: Discourses on Climate Change in Science, Politics and the Mass Media.” Public Understanding of Science 9 (2000): 261-83. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Seaton, Beth. "Feeling the Heat." M/C Journal 8.6 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0512/08-seaton.php 〉 . APA Style Seaton, B. (Dec. 2005) "Feeling the Heat," M/C Journal, 8(6). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0512/08-seaton.php 〉 .

Abstract: Introduction: about M/C Journal M/C Journal was created in 1998 as a student project for an Internet studies honours course, taught by David Marshall, in the then English Department of The University of Queensland (UQ), Australia. Its stated goal was to become an internationally significant media and cultural studies journal that was created in and for the Web, that was dedicated to the principles of open access to scholarly work, and that would, moreover, foster a spirit of public intellectualism by providing a “crossover […] between the popular and the academic.” It was also, from the outset, dedicated to the principles of complete open access. Despite numerous funding and institutional support crises, its parent organisation M/C – Media and Culture (M/C) has remained committed to providing free access to online scholarship and has never considered charging either for access or submission. The journal is now in its eleventh year of uninterrupted publication, not having succumbed to the five-year “arc of enthusiasm” noted by Walt Crawford in his 2002 study of extant e-journals. It is also one of very few purely online, peer-reviewed open-access journals that is government accredited, which I will soon explain more fully. M/C’s core editorial and administrative team now comprises a mixture of full-time academic staff, postgraduates, and creative industries practitioners from a number of universities and institutions. M/C as a publishing organisation has, over this time, continued to evolve and extend the scope of its publishing interests. Indeed, M/C now has four subsidiary publications: M/C Journal; M/C Reviews, launched only months after the journal; the M/Cyclopedia, a wiki focussing on new media issues, launched in 2005; and M/C Dialogue, which publishes interviews with prominent figures in media and culture and which was launched in 2006. The launch of the M/C wiki came soon after the journal’s institutional shift from UQ to the Creative Industries Faculty at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). In this paper, however, I’m concerned principally with M/C Journal—the original core of the M/C organisation—and the way in which its pursuit of three overriding goals—academic legitimacy, open access, and public intellectualism—continues to sit uneasily in the current Australian academic research environment.   E-publication vs P-publication: online scholarship in the 1990s M/C Journal was born at the height of the 1990s debate over the validity and potential longevity of online scholarship, a debate that was in evidence in Australia in the early ’90s. In 1993, the Australian Academy of the Humanities, supported by the Australian government, organised a conference on scholarly electronic publishing, which led to the development of the National Scholarly Communications Forum (NSCF), a peak body whose aim is to “disseminate information changes to the context and structures of scholarly communication in Australia and to make recommendations on what a broad spectrum of participants see as the best developmental policies” (“National”). Certainly, this speaks to the investment the Australian government and the learned Academies had, and continue to have, in investigating and developing new modes of scholarly communication. The 1993 conference and its published proceedings are more interested in the idea of the electronic library—in the idea of electronic or online editions, and repositories, archives, and databases that store digital copies of previously published scholarship—than in open-access scholarly publishing itself. However, even here we can detect a certain ambivalence about the effects online scholarship might have on the quality of scholarship more broadly. As Stuart Macintyre notes in his paper, although he sees the “electronic library” as a “partial remedy” to the problems facing academic scholarship at the time, he still has reservations: My conclusion, then, proceeds from the conviction that the impediments to cultural and intellectual life are less to do with the provision of information than with the circumstances of its creation. In the social sciences and the humanities we are encouraging too many academics to produce too many superfluous or artificial publications at the expense of genuinely creative scholarship. From this argument two readings of the advent of the electronic library are possible, one optimistic and the other pessimistic. The optimistic conclusion is that the electronic library will satisfy information storage requirements more cheaply, more efficiently and with far less damage to trees. The pessimistic conclusion is that for precisely these reasons it will encourage more of the same. (178) As Macintyre’s quote exemplifies, like many debates over new media at the time, the debate over online scholarship was in many respects a polarised one between technophiles and technophobes, or perhaps, less dramatically, between early adopters and conservatives. On the one hand, there were those, such as Stevan Harnad, Rob Kling, and Lisa Covi, who in the mid-1990s began to champion the potential of the Web to liberate scholarly discourse. From the advocates’ perspective, online academic journals could not only speed up the often tediously slow process of scholarly publishing, they could open academic work up to a much larger, more international audience. And for free. Resistance to this liberatory view of online scholarship was focussed around the same three principles—speed, cost, and access—but with a decidedly more negative inflection. Sceptics acknowledged that the process of peer-review, editing, and publication in print journals may well take years, but maintained that this process was a known quantity, producing a known quality. ‘Speed’ carried with it the negative connotations of ‘fast’ (‘fast scholarship’ sounded a bit like ‘fast food’) and ‘free’ the negative connotations of ‘cheap’. As for ‘access’, this raised the thorny problem of the desired academic audience, and this hesitation over speaking in a forum directly accessible to the public—a hesitation often left unaddressed in the literature—I will later discuss in more depth. At base, however, what critics of online scholarship were questioning was the legitimacy and integrity of the medium itself. As Edward J. Valauskas explains in his 1997 article on the evolution of the open-access online journal First Monday, the principle underpinning the publication of academic work—either in print or online—is “decidedly not about communication per se, but about validation and acceptance, so that a given idea expressed in a paper is legitimised by its publication” (Valauskas). Proponents of online scholarship found themselves having to counter an entrenched attitude within the conservative world of academic publishing that electronic texts were not quite publications. Writing in 1999, Rod Heimpel suggests a subversive, metaphorical strategy—complementing Harnad’s seminal 1994 “subversive proposal” for electronic journals—to promote the legitimacy of electronic texts. Heimpel states that what is needed is a “jeu de langage” that undercuts the dominant publication principle: “our task,” he writes, “is to legitimate the metaphor: WEBPAGES ARE PUBLICATIONS” (16). Simplistic though Heimpel’s call-to-action may seem, it highlights a radicalisation of the online medium by the conservative print-based world of academic publishing. To compensate for this radicalisation, Harnad, Heimpel, and Valauskas, among many others, can be seen to espouse a “same-but-different” approach in order to establish the legitimacy of online scholarship. This is particularly true in relation to the process that lies at the very heart of academic scholarship, that forms its ground, and that guarantees its rigour and its validity: peer review. Indeed, in these early debates over the legitimacy of online scholarship, peer review was the major sticking-point (Archer et al 10–11), and in 1996, Harnad attempts to set the record straight. “There are no essential differences between paper and electronic media with respect to peer review,” he states, before going on to promote the virtues of electronic peer review: “All in all, implementing the traditional peer review system purely electronically is not only eminently possible, but is likely to turn out to be optimal, with even paper journal editors preferring to conduct refereeing in the electronic medium” (Harnad, “Implementing” 112). Yet, despite these assurances, the 1990s witnessed a continued uncertainty about the legitimacy of online scholarship, for as Rob Kling and Lisa Covi found in their 1995 study, Today, many scholars are confused about the formats and intellectual quality of e-journals. In extreme cases, they feel that e-journals must be of lower intellectual quality than p-journals, because they sense something insubstantial and potentially transient—ghostly, superficial, unreal, and thus untrustworthy—in electronic media. In practice, some refereed e-journals publish high quality articles, but they are not well known by their existential critics. (266) The relationship of M/C Journal to its then host institution, UQ, in the late 1990s and early 2000s corresponds roughly with this dialectic. Despite the fact that the research and teaching interests of at least one academic in the Department of English (now the School of English, Media Studies, and Art History) enabled M/C Journal to be established, the journal was never fully accepted at a school or an institutional level. The journal’s history in its host school at UQ was characterised by continual technological and ideological battles—technological battles over access to server space and to e-mail and ideological battles over whether the journal “counted.” For instance, for a period of time, the journal’s host school at UQ refused to acknowledge its staff’s publications in M/C Journal as legitimate academic publications, despite the fact that M/C Journal had been listed for a number of years in the Australian Government’s register of peer-reviewed academic journals. Not only did this mean authors could not claim an article in M/C Journal as a peer-reviewed publication as they had been able to in previous years, but it also meant the school could not claim the government funding that would have been attached to that publication. Although it could be argued that this was more a departmental concern about staff publishing in an “in-house” journal, this stricture was not placed upon publishing in the department’s other in-house print-based journals. This restriction was admittedly short-lived, and academics in the School of English, Media Studies, and Art History at UQ now freely claim their articles in M/C Journal as legitimate publications to be listed in the Australian Government’s Higher Education Research Data Collection (HERDC), which determines how the Government allocates research income to institutions. Indeed, this article is a case in point. However, M/C’s 2004 shift from UQ to QUT—from a traditional Arts faculty to a Creative Industries faculty—was prompted by what the editorial staff of M/C Journal considered to be a continued lack of support for and lack of understanding about online scholarship in the relatively conservative research environment of UQ. I do not mean to say that this is the case for all open-access journals in the humanities or even for all open-access humanities journals in Australia. Australian Humanities Review, which began publication in 1996, and is based at the Australian National University (ANU), for instance, may have a very different institutional history. Rather, I wish to draw out the ways in which the history of M/C Journal appears to depict the ambivalence inherent in debates over open access research and to describe the ways in which it must adapt to respond to current and future debates.   The era of open access: the current research landscape and the future of online journals Despite this continued scepticism, however, in general the current debate around online scholarship is a very different one from that of the 1990s. The ‘serials crisis’ that has been plaguing university libraries for most of the last decade is expected only to worsen, and this, in turn, has made free, open-access online journals much more desirable (see Awre, and Edwards and Shulenburger). Their credibility has also been enhanced by such movements as the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), which proposed the formation of new journals that—much like M/C Journal—will no longer invoke copyright to restrict access to and use of the material they publish. Instead they will use copyright and other tools to ensure permanent open access to all the articles they publish. Because price is a barrier to access, these new journals will not charge subscription or access fees, and will turn to other methods for covering their expenses. (Budapest) The open access movement—headed by Peter Suber, and reinforced by Lawrence Lessig’s Creative Commons Organization, groundbreaking open-access repositories such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS), advocacy groups such as the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), and resources such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Charles W. Bailey’s Open Access Bibliography—has provided online journals like M/C Journal with a new raison d’être. As Stephen Pinfield explains, The subscription-based publishing paradigm is now being questioned by an increasing number of stakeholders in universities who believe it does not give them what they want. An alternative paradigm, open access, is beginning to emerge as a serious possibility. The two ‘roads’ to open access, open-access journal publishing and self-archiving on open-access repositories, are now being seen by some as possible ways of better addressing the wants of stakeholders in universities. Open access does appear to create significant possibilities: maximizing the impact potential of research papers (making them available to the widest possible audience), achieving greater affordability for institutions (creating a competitive market in which only the essentials of publishing are paid for), and lowering access barriers for the research community (in which potentially all of the literature is freely available). (310) As a result of these developments, the research directors of universities that have traditionally privileged print publications, and may well have viewed online scholarship with extreme scepticism up until a few years ago, now see open-access as the way forward. Pinfield in fact links the open access movement with the UK Research Assessment Exercises (RAEs), arguing that in the current climate universities are increasingly seeking “the rapid and wide dissemination of content” (308). Similarly, in the Australian context, Roslyn Petelin reports that the Group of Eight Australian research-led universities released a statement in 2004 that “confirmed their ‘commitment to open access initiatives that will enhance global access to scholarly information.’ The statement advocates ‘timely, cost-effective dissemination of the highest quality scholarly information’” (Petelin 120). The fact that an Australian research assessment exercise—the Excellence in Research for Australia (or ERA)—has been in development for a number of years and will be implemented in 2009 is unlikely to be mere coincidence.   Early career academics and the (continuing) perils of publishing online Given these developments—the establishment of the BOAI, support for open-access initiatives from chronically under-funded libraries, a changing research focus at the institutional level away from print-based journals, and evidence that researchers do not discriminate over which medium they use to do their research (Thomson ISI 6)—it would seem that open-access journals like M/C Journal will soon enjoy a stamp of legitimacy equal to that of print-based journals, indeed that they will have their day. Or will they? All “stakeholders” have now agreed that open-access jo urnals are cheap, fast, and quantitatively sound, and that, in this era of economic rationalism, these are good things. But does the traditional scepticism over what constitutes a “real” scholarly text and “real” academic work continue to hold sway? I would argue that the answer to this question is still, to a significant degree, yes, and particularly in the case of open-access journals in the humanities like M/C Journal. According to Petelin, while the developments of the last decade have led to “a much broader acceptance of electronic publication in the sciences […], print is still paramount in the humanities arena” (121). Moreover, while Thomson ISI’s statistics show that academics are not afraid to cite articles in open-access journals, they do not indicate whether those same academics would be willing to publish their work in open-access journals. Writing in 2000, Raymond Siemens maintained that, despite the benefits of the electronic medium, “there is a reluctance—among the same group that makes use of electronically-based academic resources and participates in electronically-facilitated exchanges—to publish in refereed electronic outlets or make their scholarship available electronically in other ways” (2). Moreover—and all studies into online scholarship agree on this point—the authors of articles in open-access journals are, more often than not, comparatively young (see Parks 9–10 and Rowlands et al 264, for example). This is perhaps unsurprising, considering that one of the main drivers in the Australian tertiary sector—as in all sectors—is the need to “utilise” new media technologies in all areas of teaching, research, and administration. Most often, it is new, early career academics to whom it falls (in that it is written into their contract) to teach technology-intensive courses: to administer distance-learning courses and to develop flexible-delivery methods within internally taught courses. However, the fact that established, mid- to late-career academics in all disciplines are not drawn to publishing in open-access journals in the same way as their early career colleagues (and, as Siemens notes, despite the fact that they themselves use online scholarship), indicates a continuing scepticism over the textual legitimacy of the medium. This apparent generational divide is borne out in a 2005 study into the attitudes of almost 4000 senior researchers across 97 countries towards open-access publishing. The results of this study demonstrated that, while “younger authors were more likely to be positive about the outcomes of OA [Open Access] publishing,” “older respondents were more likely to worry about the quality, for example, that papers will become less concise” (Nicholas, et al 512). And this scepticism has been argued to have serious and tangible consequences for early career academics. When it comes to applying for promotion and tenure, Robert Parks contended in 2002, “the young author has incentive to remain with the extant [print-based] journal. […] Convincing a dean that an article in a [scholarly open-access journal] has the same value as a hard copy journal article will be difficult if not impossible” (9-10). In 2000, an Indiana University study claimed to demonstrate that publishing online in fact adversely affects the chances of achieving promotion and tenure for early career academics. In a mock promotions round, a fictional early career academic’s application for tenure was turned down by fellow staff members as a result of continuing “skeptic[ism] about the quality and effectiveness of online research and teaching” (Kiernan 45). Opinion is divided as to whether this situation has changed in recent years following the exponential growth of open-access publishing. Certainly, the abovementioned 2005 study indicates that most respondants did not see open-access publishing as “radical” or as having no career advantage (Nicholas, et al 507). However, this is tempered by the fact that authors from countries that had a “poor commitment to OA publishing”—notably Australia, North America, and Western Europe—“associated OA with ephemeral publishing, poor archiving and no career advantage” (517). Moreover, as the authors of the study note, “perhaps the biggest finding to emerge from the study is the general ignorance of OA publishing on the part of relatively senior scholarly authors” (515). Yet there are signs that open access or online scholarship is becoming more broadly accepted. In the humanities, the Modern Language Association (MLA) has made decidedly positive policy statements relating to online scholarship over the past three years, indicating a clearer acceptance of online scholarship. In 2003, the MLA released a policy statement in support of the electronic journal, which it regards as “a viable and credible mode of scholarly publication” that “represents a particularly important development in the light of recent constraints on university press publication” (“Statement”). Moreover, in 2006, the MLA released their report on evaluating scholarship for tenure and promotion in language and literature departments. Among other recommendations, the report proposes that tenure should not be hampered by biases towards publication in print, and explicitly states that “departments and institutions should recognize the legitimacy of scholarship produced in new media, whether by individuals or in collaboration, and create procedures for evaluating these forms of scholarship” (“Report” 63). However, according to SPARC steering committee member Ray English, despite the growing prestige and impact of a number of open access journals, risks remain for younger, non-tenured researchers considering publishing their research online (“Open Access”). The ongoing nature of the open-access debate reveals the core of the problematic facing open-access journals: that while it is now deemed safe to use online scholarship, it is still not entirely safe to produce it. Furthermore, I would argue that this problematic is even more strongly registered in relation to humanities open-access journals than it is in their counterparts in the sciences. The difference here, I argue, relates to purpose and audience. That is, the intended audience of open-access science journals remains the same as their print equivalents: researchers working within the particular discipline and familiar with disciplinary research discourses in the sciences. For open-access science journals, on the whole, the online medium is simply a way of disseminating knowledge to the same audience more effectively and cheaply. On the other hand, the mission of a number of pioneering humanities open-access journals—such as First Monday, PMC, and M/C Journal—was to use the medium of the Web to open online scholarship up to new audiences, to serve a public-intellectual function. Again, this disciplinary divide is borne out by Nicholas et al’s 2005 study, which found that senior researchers in the humanities, the social sciences, and economics were more sceptical about the quality of open-access publications than those in material science, mathematics, agriculture, biochemistry, biology, and immunology (513–14).   Who’s afraid of the public intellectual? For M/C Journal it is the journal’s public-intellectual focus that defines and constitutes its relevance. In 2004, the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper published a table ranking the “top ten online political directories” in Australia. M/C Journal appeared on this list, beating both the Liberal Party’s website and also that of the then opposition leader, Mark Latham. Why the Australian—via the traffic monitor Hitwise—categorised M/C Journal as an influential “political directory” is unclear, though it perhaps may relate to the fact the journal promotes itself as “a place of public intellectualism.” Political directory might seem at first a misnomer for a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, but it registers the ambiguity that surrounds M/C Journal. Clearly, then, M/C Journal has some kind of “public” impact beyond academe. The ideal for any academic is, speaking simply, to have an impact (this is, after all, why we teach, why we publish, why we attend conferences), and the most admirable academic is one whose ideas speak beyond the more-often-than-not closed circuits of academic discourse and enter into the public domain. Moreover, perhaps more than ever before, it is institutionally required for academics in the humanities to prove their value by doing public cultural work and documenting that work in their administrative academic portfolios. Yet, if this is the case, why did M/C Journal’s citations in the popular press garner it not cachet, but further questions from its host school at UQ over content and integrity? Again, I would argue, the concept of unrestricted access to scholarly discourse is one the traditional research agenda is not entirely comfortable with, for it raises the dialectics of private and public and inside and outside. Using the online medium to “go public” in a self-aware way—unlike the science model of using open-access journals to continue to speak to a restricted academic audience—in this context, smacks, once more, of cheapness and a lack of scholarly credibility. Further, given the relative youth of those producing online scholarship, claims to public intellectual status, in this same Australian academic context, might well also be attended with cynicism. In the Australian context, the public intellectual is a figure who inhabits the print world or the airwaves. Meaghan Morris and Iain McCalman claim that this media construction of the public intellectual in Australia has solidified into what they term the “icon” of the public intellectual, and when academics, journalists, or media personalities talk about public intellectuals the same names invariably keep cropping up. These are names such as Inga Clendinnen, Robert Manne, Henry Reynolds, Geoffrey Blainey, Helen Garner, Humphrey McQueen, and Keith Windschuttle to name only a few. Big-name people making big stands on the same “big issues” that define and are defined by public intellectualism in Australia—issues such as elites and elitism (intellectual versus sporting); multiculturalism, race, and immigration; feminism; culture wars; history wars; indigenous issues; the generational divide; and, finally in this inexhaustive list, the media, its lack of independence, and its right-wing bias. In the last few years, the humanities has seen published at least four book-length studies on the future of public intellectualism (see, for example, Carter, Collini, Fuller, and Furedi). However, in each of these works, the Internet or new media figure either barely or not at all. In a 2003 essay, Patrick Brantlinger does investigate the impact of computing technologies (again, making only passing reference to the Internet) upon “professors and intellectuals,” but his fear of computers in the academy is almost palpable: “Intellectuals may have retreated into the academy, but the academy itself is being rapidly transformed into an electronically wired ‘iron cage,’ increasingly staffed not by intellectuals or professors, but by computers and their satraps” (136). The same, but in reverse, can be said of research in new media—the term “public intellectualism” seems to be of little interest to Internet studies scholars. Research in new media inevitably notes the technological transformations going on within the public sphere, but rarely examines what sort of “intellectual” practices might be going on within new media. In the Australian context, in particular, I would argue that much of this is due to the generational debate surrounding public intellectualism—that is, the question over who can, and at what age can they begin to, call themselves a public intellectual—along with the debate over what, in fact, constitutes public cultural work.   Changing the culture of scepticism The similarities between academic anxieties over public intellectual work and over online scholarship I believe are marked, and it is this combination that places M/C Journal in an ambiguous position in relation to dominant discourses of academic legitimacy. Moreover, the continued resistance in academe to recognising both the value of producing online scholarship and public intellectualism registers the double-bind facing early career academics. While these academics are more than ever before institutionally bound to demonstrate public cultural work and to use new media technologies, the traditional textual notions of legitimate academic work that continue to pervade the research agenda of the traditionalist research universities militate against this. M/C Journal continues to operate within this zone of ambivalence, but it is also seeking proactive ways to change this prevailing culture of scepticism in relation to open-access e-journals in the humanities. The announcement of the Australian government’s ERA initiative to measure research quality in Australia has also prompted M/C Journal to seek new ways to make visible the quality of research it publishes. Although, as I have explained, research assessment exercises tend to bring with them reinvigorated discussions about the place of open access scholarship, they also bring about new criteria by which publications are assessed. Prior to the ERA, the only criterion for government accreditation was peer-review; a documentable peer-review process would allow a journal to be placed on the Australian Government’s (now defunct) register of peer-reviewed academic journals. Publishing in a journal on this list would allow Australian authors to claim publication “points” for their articles and this, in turn, would translate into funding for their institution. Since the announcement of the ERA, this register has been replaced by a tiered ranking system for journals, which is currently undergoing a process of consultation in the Australian higher education sector. In the draft list of ranked journals (some 20000 in all), released two months ago, M/C Journal is listed as a “B” journal, two ranks below the top “A*” rank and one rank above the lowest “C” rank. It shares this provisional rank with two other Australian open-access humanities journals, Australian Humanities Review and Borderlands. First Monday has been given a ranking of “A,” and PMC does not appear in the list, along with most of the peer-reviewed open-access humanities journals listed in the DOAJ. With the announcement of the ERA and the tiered ranking system, peer-review is no longer the sole determinant of a journal’s academic status. Under the old system, all journals on the government register were treated equally. Under the new, tiered system, an article published in an “A*” journal will be worth more—in points and funding—than an article in a “B” journal. Concerns about this shift to tier rankings are widespread in the humanities, and are evident in Guy Redden’s article for this issue and in the discussion forum of the Cultural Studies Association of Australia (CSAA) in early July 2008. Many of those who posted to the CSAA list expressed concern that these rankings will negatively affect emerging journals, specialist journals, or online journals, favouring instead established, generalist, and broadly print-based journals. Although M/C Journal’s international focus, reputation, and research base means it is well placed to weather any national fall-out from the rankings, these changes have prompted the journal to reconsider its publication strategies and to implement new processes for tracking peer review and establishing its quality. M/C has established, and will continue to establish, research projects and new publications (for example, M/C Dialogue) that examine the relationships between new media and public intellectualism as well as implementing new processes that foreground its public-intellectual focus while protecting the integrity of the journal’s peer-review process. One of these new developments is M/C Journal’s shift to the online journal management system Open Jour nal Systems (OJS). Many open-access journals in the sciences have turned to commercial, third-party web-based manuscript submission and peer-review tracking systems in order to make the peer-review process faster, more manageable, and, importantly, more transparent. Some journals, such as the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), have established their own online submission systems that promote open-access initiatives through creative commons licensing. However, many, if not most, open-access journals that employ web-based manuscript systems have passed the cost of creating or purchasing this infrastructure on to authors by charging manuscript “processing fees.” JMIR, for instance, charges authors US $90 per article submission, and US $350 for a “fast-tracked” submission. Moreover, in the majority of cases, open-access journals that use these systems use them in order to create archivable PDF documents that recreate the “look and feel” of a printed journal in an online environment. By contrast, OJS is an open-source journal management and publishing system created and made freely available by the Public Knowledge Project—a SPARC-endorsed research initiative funded by the Canadian government and based at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. M/C Journal’s aim is to employ OJS software to build a fully integrated manuscript submission, reviewing, and publication system that promotes efficiency and transparency, but speaks more specifically to the concerns of an open-access web-based humanities e-journal. (First Monday, for instance, moved to OJS in late 2007.) In particular, M/C Journal is working to create a system that focuses on multimedia and hypertextual publication and that does not assume PDF as a default article format; that promotes open-access initiatives by incorporating creative commons licensing and by ensuring submission and access to articles is completely without cost to the user; and that further fosters a spirit of public intellectualism not only through an increasingly transparent and interactive peer-review process, but also through enabling public commentary on articles and issues post-publication. This tenth anniversary issue on the topic of ‘publish’ is M/C Journal’s first issue to be published through the OJS system. Whether these strategies will have any discernible effect on M/C Journal’s national standing will not be clear for some time yet. However, by continuing to interrogate the discourses of academic legitimacy that surround the production, consumption, and accreditation of online scholarship, M/C Journal hopes to carve out a new space for academic discourse that maintains the principles of academic rigour and can immediately be recognised as “legitimate” scholarly work, but does not neutralise the online medium’s potential for public cultural work.   Acknowledgement The author would like to acknowledge the reviewers of this article for their valuable suggestions.   References Archer, Keith, et al. Scholarly Electronic Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences in Canada: A Study of the Transformation of Knowledge Communication. Report to the Humanities and Social Science Federation of Canada. 1999. Awre, Chris. “Open Access and the Impact on Publishing and Purchasing.” Serials 16.2 (2003): 205–08. Bailey, Charles W. Jr. Open Access Bibliography: Liberating Scholarly Literature with E-Prints and Open Access Journals. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2005. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.escholarlypub.com/oab/oab.pdf 〉 . Brantlinger, Patrick. “Professors and Public Intellectuals in the Information Age.” Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies 21.3 (2003): 122–36. Budapest Open Access Initiative. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml 〉 . Carter, David, ed. The Ideas Market. Melbourne: Melbourne UP, 2004. Collini, Stefan. Absent Minds: Intellectuals in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Crawford, Walt. “Free Electronic Refereed Journals: Getting Past the Arc of Enthusiasm.” Learned Publishing 15.2 (2002): 117–23. Edwards, Richard, and David Shulenburger. “The High Cost of Scholarly Journals (and What to Do About It).” Change 35.6 (2003): 10–19. Fuller, Steve. The Intellectual. Cambridge: Icon, 2005. Furedi, Frank. Where Have all the Intellectuals Gone?: Confronting 21st Century Philistinism. London: Continuum, 2004. Harnad, Stevan. “Implementing Peer Review on the Net: Scientific Quality Control in Scholarly Electronic Journals.” Scholarly Publishing: The Electronic Frontier. Ed. R. P. Peek and G. B. Newby. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1996. 103–18. 12 July 2008 ‹http://cogprints.org/1692/0/harnad96.peer.review.html 〉 . ---. “Overture: The Subversive Proposal.” Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. Ed. Ann Shumelda Okerson and James J. O’Donnell. Washington, DC: Office of Scientific and Academic Publishing, Association of Research Libraries, 1995. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/i-overture-the-subversive-proposal.shtml 〉 . Heimpel, Rod. “Legitimizing Electronic Scholarly Publications: A Discursive Proposal.” Surfaces 8.104 (1999). 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.chass.toronto.edu/epc/chwp/heimpel2/heimpel2.htm 〉 . Kiernan, Vincent. “Rewards Remain Dim for Professors Who Pursue Digital Scholarship.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 28 Apr. 2000: A45–A46. Kling, Rob, and Lisa Covi. “Electronic Journals and Legitimate Media in the Systems of Scholarly Communication.” The Information Society 11.4 (1995): 261–71. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/chwp/kling/index.html 〉 . Macintyre, Stuart. “Cultural and Intellectual Changes.” Changes in Scholarly Communication Patterns: Australia and the Electronic Library. Ed. John Mulvaney and Colin Steele. Canberra: Australian Academy of the Humanities, 1993. 175–78. Morris, Meaghan, and Iain McCalman. “Public Culture.” Knowing Ourselves and Others: The Humanities in Australia Into the 21st Century. The Australian Academy of the Humanities. 1998. “National Scholarly Communications Forum (NSCF).” 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.naf.org.au/nscf.htm 〉 . Nicholas, David, Paul Huntington, and Ian Rowlands. “Open Access Journal Publishing: The Views of Some of the World’s Senior Authors.” Journal of Documentation 61.4 (2005): 497–519. “Open Access to Scholarship: An Interview with Ray English.” 11 Dec. 2005. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.academiccommons.org/the-commons/interviews/Ray_English_Open_Access 〉 . Parks, Robert P. “The Faustian Grip of Academic Publishing.” Journal of Economic Methodology 9.3 (2002): 317–35. Petelin, Roslyn. “Academic Journal Publishing: Desiderata for the Digital Age. Australian Journal of Communication 31.3 (2004): 117–23. Pinfield, Stephen. “What Do Universities Want from Publishing?” Learned Publishing 17 (2004): 305–11. “Report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion.” Modern Language Association. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.mla.org/tenure_promotion 〉 . Rowlands, Ian, Dave Nicholas, and Paul Huntington. “Scholarly Communication in the Digital Environment: What Do Authors Want?” Learned Publishing 17 (2004): 261–73. Siemens, Raymond. “Introduction and Overview.” The Credibility of Electronic Publishing: A Report to the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada. Malaspina University-College. 12 May 2000. 12 July 2008 ‹http://web.mala.bc.ca/hssfc/Final/Overview.htm 〉 . “Statement on Publication in Electronic Journals.” Modern Language Association. 24–25 Oct. 2003. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.mla.org/statement_on_publica 〉 . Thomson ISI. “The Impact of Open Access Journals.” 2004. 12 July 2008 ‹http://www.thomsonscientific.com/promo/openaccess/ 〉 . Valauskas, Edward J. “Waiting for Thomas Kuhn: First Monday and the Evolution of Electronic Journals.” Journal of Electronic Publishing 3.1 (1997). 12 July 2008 ‹http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3336451.0003.104 〉  

Abstract: As Earth heats up and water vapourises, “Adapt” is a word that is frequently invoked right now, in a world seething with change and challenge. Its Oxford English Dictionary definitions—“to fit, to make suitable; to alter so as to fit for a new use”—give little hint of the strangely divergent moral values associated with its use. There is, of course, the word’s unavoidable Darwinian connotations which, in spite of creationist controversy, communicate a cluster of positive values linked with progress. By contrast, the literary use of adapt is frequently linked with negative moral values. Even in our current “hyper-adaptive environment” (Rizzo)—in which a novel can become a theme park ride can become a film can become a computer game can become a novelisation—an adaptation is seen as a debasement of an original, inauthentic, inferior, parasitic (Hutcheon, 2-3). A starting point from which to explore the word’s “positive”—that is, evolutionary—use is the recently released Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, which argues the necessity of adapting in order to survive. Indeed, an entire section is titled “Policy responses for adaptation,” outlining—among other things—“an economic framework for adaptation”; “barriers and constraints to adaptation”; and “how developing countries can adapt to climate change” (403). Although evolution is not directly mentioned, it is evoked through the review’s analysis of a dire situation which compels humans to change in response to their changing environment. Yet the mere existence of the review, and its enumeration of problems and solutions, suggests that human adaptive abilities are up to the task, drawing on positive traits such as resilience, flexibility, agility, innovation, creativity, progressiveness, appropriateness, and so on. These values, and their connection to the evolutionary use of “adapt”, infuse 21st-century life. “Adapt,” “evolution”, and that cluster of values are entwined so closely that recalling effort is required to remind oneself that “adapt” existed before evolutionary theory. And whether or not one accepts the premise of evolution—or even understands it beyond the level of reductive popular science—it provides an irresistible metaphor that underlies areas as diverse as education, business, organisational culture, politics, and law. For example, Judith Robinson’s article “Education as the Foundation of the New Economy” quotes Canada’s former deputy prime minister John Manley: “The future holds nothing but change. … Charles Darwin said, ‘It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change.’” Robinson adds: “Education is how we equip our people with the ability to adapt to change.” Further examples show “adapt” as a positive metaphor for government. A study into towns in rural Queensland discovered that while some towns “have reinvented themselves and are thriving,” others “that are not innovative or adaptable” are in decline (Plowman, Ashkanasy, Gardner and Letts, 8). The Queensland Government’s Smart State Strategy also refers to the desirability of adapting: “The pace of change in the world is now so rapid—and sometimes so unpredictable—that our best prospects for maintaining our lead lie in our agility, flexibility and adaptability.” The Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training, in setting national research priorities, identifies “An Environmentally Sustainable Australia” and in that context specifically mentions the need to adapt: “there needs to be an increased understanding of the contributions of human behaviour to environmental and climate change, and on [sic] appropriate adaptive responses and strategies.” In the corporate world, the Darwinian allusion is explicit in book titles such as Geoffrey Moore’s 2005 Dealing with Darwin: How Great Companies Innovate at Every Phase of their Evolution: “Moore’s theme is innovation, which he sees as being necessary to the survival of business as a plant or animal adapting to changes in habitat” (Johnson). Within organisations, the metaphor is also useful, for instance in D. Keith Denton’s article, “What Darwin Can Teach Us about Success:” “In order to understand how to create and manage adaptability, we need to look first at how nature uses it. … Species that fail to adapt have only one option left.” That option is extinction, which is the fate of “over 99% of all species that have ever existed.” However, any understanding of “adapt” as wholly positive and forward-moving is too simplistic. It ignores, for example, aspects of adaptation that are dangerous to people (such as the way the avian influenza virus or simian AIDS can adapt so that humans can become their hosts). Bacteria rapidly adapt to antibiotics; insects rapidly adapt to pesticides. Furthermore, an organism that is exquisitely adapted to a specific niche becomes vulnerable with even a small disturbance in its environment. The high attrition rate of species is breathtakingly “wasteful” and points to the limitations of the evolutionary metaphor. Although corporations and education have embraced the image, it is unthinkable that any corporation or educational system would countenance either evolution’s tiny adaptive adjustments over a long period of time, or the high “failure” rate. Furthermore, evolution can only be considered “progress” if there is an ultimate goal towards which evolution is progressing: the anthropocentric viewpoint that holds that “the logical and inevitable endpoint of the evolutionary process is the human individual,” as Rizzo puts it. This suggests that the “positive” values connected with this notion of “adapt” are a form of self-congratulation among those who consider themselves the “survivors”. A hierarchy of evolution-thought places “agile,” “flexible” “adaptors” at the top, while at the bottom of the hierarchy are “stagnant,” “atrophied” “non-adaptors”. The “positive” values then form the basis for exclusionary prejudices directed at those human and non-human beings seen as being “lower” on the evolutionary scale. Here we have arrived at Social Darwinism, the Great-Chain-of-Being perspective, Manifest Destiny—all of which still justify many kinds of unjust treatment of humans, animals, and ecosystems. Literary or artistic meanings of “adapt”—although similarly based on hierarchical thinking (Shiloh)—are, as mentioned earlier, frequently laden with negative moral values. Directly contrasting with the evolutionary adaptation we have just discussed, value in literary adaptation is attached to “being first” rather than to the success of successors. Invidious dichotomies that actually reverse the moral polarity of Darwinian adaptation come into play: “authentic” versus “fake”, “original” versus “copy”, “strong” versus “weak”, “superior” versus “inferior”. But, as the authors collected in this issue demonstrate, the assignment of a moral value to evolutionary “adapt”, and another to literary “adapt”, is too simplistic. The film Adaptation (Spike Jonze, 2002)—discussed in three articles in this issue—deals with both these uses of the word, and provides the impetus to these authors’ explorations of possible connections and contrasts between them. Evidence of the pervasiveness of the concept is seen in the work of other writers, who explore the same issues in a range of cultural phenomena, such as graffiti, music sampling, a range of activities in and around the film industry, and several forms of identity formation. A common theme is the utter inadequacy of a single moral value being assigned to “adapt”. For example, McMerrin quotes Ghandi in her paper: “Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” Shiloh argues: “If all texts quote or embed fragments of earlier texts, the notion of an authoritative literary source, which the cinematic version should faithfully reproduce, is no longer valid.” Furnica, citing Rudolf Arnheim, points out that an adaptation “increases our understanding of the adapted work.” All of which suggests that the application of “adapt” to circumstances of culture and nature suggests an “infinite onion” both of adaptations and of the “core samples of difference” that are the inevitable corollary of this issue’s theme. To drill down into the products of culture, to peel back the “facts” of nature, is only ever to encounter additional and increasingly minute variations of the activity of “adapt”. One never hits the bottom of difference and adaptation. Still, why would you want to, when the stakes of “adapt” might be little different from the stakes of life itself? At least, this is the insight that the philosophy of Gilles Deleuze—in all its rhizomatic variations—seems constantly to be leading us towards: “Life” (capitalised) is a continual germination that feeds on a thousand tiny adaptations of open-ended desire and of a ceaselessly productive mode of difference. Besides everything else that they do, all of the articles in this issue participate—in one way or another—in this notion of “adapt” as a constant impetus towards new configurations of culture and of nature. They are the proof (if such proof were to be requested or required) that the “infinite onion” of adaptation and difference, while certainly a mise en abyme, is much more a positive “placing into infinity” than a negative “placing into the abyss.” Adaptation is nothing to be feared; stasis alone spells death. What this suggests, furthermore, is that a contemporary ethics of difference and alterity might not go far wrong if it were to adopt “adapt” as its signature experience. To be ever more sensitive to the subtle nuances, to the evanescences on the cusp of nothingness … of adaptation … is perhaps to place oneself at the leading edge of cultural activity, where the boundaries of self and other have, arguably, never been more fraught. Again, all of the contributors to this issue dive—“Alice-like”—down their own particular rabbit holes, in order to bring back to the surface something previously unthought or unrecognised. However, two recent trends in the sciences and humanities—or rather at the complex intersection of these disciplines—might serve as useful, generalised frameworks for the work on “adapt” that this issue pursues. The first of these is the upwelling of interest (contra Darwinism) in the theories of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). For Lamarck, adaptation takes a deviation from the Darwinian view of Natural Selection. Lamarckism holds, in distinction from Darwin, that the characteristics acquired by individuals in the course of their (culturally produced) lifetimes can be transmitted down the generations. If your bandy-legged great-grandfather learnt to bend it like Beckham, for example, then Manchester United would do well to sign you up in the cradle. Lamarck’s ideas are an encouragement to gather up, for cultural purposes, ever more refined understandings of “adapt”. What this pro-Lamarckian movement also implies is a new “crossing-over point” of the natural/biological with the cultural/acquired. The second trend to be highlighted here, however, does more than merely imply such a refreshed configuration of nature and culture. Elizabeth Grosz’s recent work directly calls the bluff of the traditional Darwinian (not to mention Freudian) understanding of “biology as destiny”. In outline form, we propose that she does this by running together notions of biological difference (the male/female split) with the “ungrounded” difference of Deleuzean thinking and its derivatives. Adaptation thus shakes free, on Grosz’s reading, from the (Darwinian and Freudian) vestiges of biological determinism and becomes, rather, a productive mode of (cultural) difference. Grosz makes the further move of transporting such a “shaken and stirred” version of biological difference into the domains of artistic “excess”, on the basis that “excessive” display (as in the courting rituals of the male peacock) is fundamentally crucial to those Darwinian axioms centred on the survival of the species. By a long route, therefore, we are returned, through Grosz, to the interest in art and adaptation that has, for better or for worse, tended to dominate studies of “adapt”, and which this issue also touches upon. But Grosz returns us to art very differently, which points the way, perhaps, to as yet barely recognised new directions in the field of adaptation studies. We ask, then, where to from here? Responding to this question, we—the editors of this issue—are keen to build upon the groundswell of interest in 21st-century adaptation studies with an international conference, entitled “Adaptation & Application”, to be held on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia in early 2009. The “Application” part of this title reflects, among other things, the fact that our conference will be, perhaps uniquely, itself an example of “adapt”, to the extent that it will have two parallel but also interlocking strands: adaptation; application. Forward-thinking architects Arakawa and Gins have expressed an interest in being part of this event. (We also observe, in passing, that “application”, or “apply”, may be an excellent theme for a future issue of M/C Journal…) Those interested in knowing more about the “Adaptation and Application” conference may contact either of us on the email addresses given in our biographical notes. There are sev eral groups and individuals that deserve public acknowledgement here. Of course, we thank the authors of these fourteen articles for their stimulating and reflective contributions to the various debates around “adapt”. We would also like to acknowledge the hugely supportive efforts of our hard-pressed referees. Equally, our gratitude goes out to those respondents to our call for papers whose submissions could not be fitted into this already overflowing issue. What they sent us kept the standard high, and many of the articles rejected for publication on this occasion will, we feel sure, soon find a wider audience in another venue (the excellent advice provided by our referees has an influence, in this way, beyond the life of this issue). We also wish to offer a very special note of thanks to Linda Hutcheon, who took time out from her exceptionally busy schedule to contribute the feature article for this issue. Her recent monograph A Theory of Adaptation is essential reading for all serious scholars of “adapt”, as is her contribution here. We are honoured to have Professor Hutcheon’s input into our project. Special thanks are also due to Gold-Coast based visual artist Judy Anderson for her “adaptation of adaptation” into a visual motif for our cover image. This inspiring piece is entitled “Between Two” (2005; digital image on cotton paper). Accessing experiences perhaps not accessible through words alone, Anderson’s image nevertheless “speaks adaptation”, as her Artist’s Statement suggests: The surface for me is a sensual encounter; an event, shifting form. As an eroticised site, it evokes memories of touch. … Body, object, place are woven together with memory; forgetting and remembering. The tactility and materiality of touching the surface is offered back to the viewer. These images are transitions themselves. As places of slippage and adaptation, they embody intervals on many levels; between the material and the immaterial, the familiar and the strange. Their source remains obscure so that they might represent spaces in-between—overlooked places that open up unexpectedly. If we have learned just one thing from the experience of editing the M/C Journal ‘adapt’ issue, it is that our theme richly rewards the sort of intellectual and creative activity demonstrated by our contributors. Much has been done here; much remains to be done. Some of this work will take place, no doubt, at the “Adaptation and Application” conference, and we hope to see many of you on the Gold Coast in 2009. But for now, it’s over to you, to engage with what you might encounter here, and to work new “adaptations” upon it. References Australian Government Department of Education, Science and Training. Environmentally Sustainable Australia. 2005. 28 Apr. 2007 http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews /key_issues/national_research_priorities/priority_goals /environmentally_sustainable_australia.htm 〉 . Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. A Thousand Plateaux. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Denton, D Keith. “What Darwin Can Teach Us about Success.” Development and Learning in Organizations 20.1 (2006): 7ff. Furnica, Ioana. “Subverting the ‘Good, Old Tune’: Carlos Saura’s Carmen Adaptation.” M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). 28 Apr. 2007 . Grosz, Elizabeth. In the Nick of Time: Politics, Evolution and the Untimely. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. Grosz, Elizabeth. “Sensation”. Plenary III Session. 9th Annual Comparative Literature Conference. Gilles Deleuze: Texts and Images: An International Conference. University of South Carolina, Columbia. 7 April 2007. Grosz, Elizabeth. Time Travels: Feminism, Nature, Power. Durham: Duke University Press, 2005. Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York and London: Routledge, 2006. Johnson, Cecil. “Darwinian Notions of Corporate Innovation,” Boston Globe, 15 Jan. 2006: L.2. McMerrin, Michelle. “Agency in Adaptation.” M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). 28 Apr. 2007 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/03 mcmerrin.php mcmerrin.php 〉 . Neimanis, Astrida. “A Feminist Deleuzian Politics? It’s About Time.” TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies 16 (2006): 154-8. Plowman, Ian, Neal M. Ashkanasy, John Gardner, and Malcolm Letts. Innovation in Rural Queensland: Why Some Towns Thrive while Others Languish: Main Report. University of Queensland/Department of Primary Industries. Queensland, Dec. 2003. 28 Apr. 2007 http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/business/14778.html 〉 . Queensland Government. Smart State Strategy 2005-2015 Timeframe. 2007. 28 Apr. 2007 http://www.smartstate.qld.gov.au/strategy/strategy05_15/timeframes.shtm 〉 . Rizzo, Sergio. “Adaptation and the Art of Survival.” M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). 28 Apr. 2007 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/02-rizzo.php 〉 . Shiloh, Ilana. “Adaptation, Intertextuality, and the Endless Deferral of Meaning: Memento.” M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). 28 Apr. 2007 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/08-shiloh.php 〉 . Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. 2006. 28 Apr. 2007 http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_ economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm 〉 . Citation reference for this article MLA Style Delamoir, Jeannette, and Patrick West. "Editorial." M/C Journal 10.2 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/00-editorial.php 〉 . APA Style Delamoir, J., and P. West. (May 2007) "Editorial," M/C Journal, 10(2). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/00-editorial.php 〉 .

Abstract: “Live free or die!” (New Hampshire State motto) Should individuals be free to make lifestyle decisions (such as what, when and how much to eat and how much physical activity to take), without undue interference from the state, even when their decisions may lead to negative consequences (obesity, heart disease, diabetes)? The UN Declaration of Human Rights enshrines the belief that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. The philosophy of Libertarianism (Locke) proposes that rights can be negative (e.g. the freedom to be free from outside interference) as well as positive (e.g. the right to certain benefits supplied by others). Robert Nozick, a proponent of Libertarianism, has argued that we have the right to make informed decisions about our lives without unnecessary interference. This entitlement requires that we exercise our rights only as far as they do not infringe the rights of others. The popular notion of the “Nanny State” (often used derogatively) is discussed, and the metaphor is extended to draw on the Super Nanny phenomenon, a reality television series that has been shown in numerous countries including the UK, the US, and Australia. It is argued in this paper that social marketing, when done well, can help create a “Super Nanny State” (implying positive connotations). In the “Nanny State” people are told what to do; in the “Super Nanny State” people are empowered to make healthier decisions. Social marketing applies commercial marketing principles to “sell” ideas (rather than goods or services) with the aim of improving the welfare of individuals and/or society. Where the common good may not be easily discerned, Donovan and Henley recommended using the UN Declaration of Human Rights as the baseline reference point. Social marketing is frequently used to persuade individuals to make healthier lifestyle decisions such as “eat less [saturated] fat”, “eat two fruits and five veg a day”, “find thirty minutes of physical activity a day”. Recent medical gains in immunisation, sanitation and treating infectious diseases mean that the health of a population can now be more improved by influencing lifestyle decisions than by treating illness (Rothschild). Social marketing activities worldwide are directed at influencing lifestyle decisions to prevent or minimise lifestyle diseases. “Globesity” is the new epidemic (Kline). Approximately one billion people globally are overweight or obese (compared to 850 million who are underweight); most worryingly, about 10% of children worldwide are now overweight or obese with rising incidence of type 2 diabetes in this population (Yach, Stuckler, and Brownwell). “Nanny state” is a term people often use derogatively to refer to government intervention (see Henley and Jackson). Knag (405) made a distinction between old-style, authoritarian “paternalism”, which chastised the individual using laws and sanctions, and a newer “maternalism” or “nanny state” which smothers the individual with “education and therapy (or rather, propaganda and regulation)”. Knag’s use of the term “Nanny State” still has pejorative connotations. In the “Nanny State”, governments are seen as using the tool of social marketing to tell people what they should and shouldn’t do, as if they were children being supervised by a nanny. At the extreme, people may be afraid that social marketing could be used by the State as a way to control the thoughts of the vulnerable, a view expressed some years ago by participants in a survey of attitudes towards social marketing (Laczniak, Lusch, and Murphy). More recently, the debate is more likely to focus on why social marketing often appears to be ineffective, rather than frighteningly effective (Hastings, Stead, and Macintosh). Another concern is the high level of fear being generated by much of the social marketing effort (Hastings and MacFadyen; Henley). It is as if nanny thinks she must scream at her children all the time to warn them that they will die if they don’t listen to her. However, by extension, I am suggesting that the “Super Nanny State” metaphor could have positive associations, with an authoritative (rather than authoritarian) parenting figure, one who explains appropriate sanctions (laws and regulations) but who is also capable of informing, inspiring and empowering. Still, the Libertarian ethical viewpoint would question whether governments, through social marketers, have the right to try to influence people’s lifestyle decisions such as what and how much to eat, how much to exercise, etc. In the rise of the “Nanny State”, Holt argued that governments are extending the range of their regulatory powers, restricting free markets and intruding into areas of personal responsibility, all under the guise of acting for the public’s good. A number of arguments, discussed below, can be proposed to justify interference by the State in the lifestyle decisions of individuals. The Economic Argument One argument that is often quoted to justify interference by the State is that the economic costs of allowing unsafe/unhealthy behaviours have to be borne by the community. It has been estimated in the US that medical costs relating to diabetes (which is associated directly with obesity) increased from $44 billion to $92 billion in five years (Yach, et al). The economic argument can be useful for persuading governments to invest in prevention but is not sufficient as a fundamental justification for interference. If we say that we want people to eat more healthily because their health costs will be burdensome to the community, we imply that we would not ask them to do so if their health costs were not burdensome, even if they were dying prematurely as a result. The studies relating to the economic costs of obesity have not been as extensive as those relating to the economic costs of tobacco (Yach, et al), where some have argued that prematurely dying of smoking-related diseases is less costly to the State than the costs incurred in living to old age (Barendregt, et al). This conclusion has been disputed (Rasmussen et al), but even if true, would not provide sufficient justification to cease tobacco control efforts. Similarly, I think people would expect social marketing efforts relating to nutrition and physical activity to continue even if an economic analysis showed that people dying prematurely from obesity-related illnesses were costing the State less overall in health care costs than people living an additional twenty years. The Consumer Protection Argument Some degree of interference by the State is desirable and often necessary because people are not entirely self-reliant in every circumstance (Mead). The social determinants of health (Marmot and Wilkinson) are sufficiently well-understood to justify government regulation to reduce inequalities in housing, education, access to health services, etc. Implicit in the criticism that the “Nanny State” treats people like children is the assumption that children are treated without dignity and respect. The positive parent or “Super Nanny” treats children with respect but recognises their vulnerability in unfamiliar or dangerous contexts. A survey of opinion in the UK in 2004 by the King’s Fund, an independent think tank, found that the public generally supported government initiatives to encourage healthier school meals; ensure cheaper fruit and vegetables; pass laws to limit salt, fat and sugar in foods; stop advertising junk foods for children and regulate for nutrition labels on food (UK public wants a “Nanny State”). The UK’s recently established National Social Marketing Centre has made recommendations for social marketing strategies to improve public health and Prime Minister Tony Blair has responded by making public health, especially the growing obesity problem, a central issue for government initiatives, offering a “helping hand” approach (Triggle). The Better Alternative Argument Wikler considered the case for more punitive government intervention in the obesity debate by weighing the pros and cons of an interesting strategy: the introduction of a “fat tax” that would require citizens to be weighed and, if found to be overweight, require them to pay a surcharge. He concluded that this level of state interference would not be justified because there are other ways to appeal to the risk-taker’s autonomy, through education and therapeutic efforts. Governments can use social marketing as one of these better alternatives to punitive sanctions. The Level Playing Field Argument Social marketers argue that many lifestyle behaviours are not entirely voluntary (O’Connell and Price). For example, it is argued that an individual’s choices about eating fast food, consuming sweetened soft drinks, and living sedentary lives have already been partially determined by commercial efforts. Thus, they argue that social marketing efforts are intended to level the playing field – educate, inform, and restore true personal autonomy to people, enabling them to make rational choices (Smith). For example, Kline’s media education program in Canada, with a component of “media risk reduction”, successfully educated young consumers (elementary school children) with strategies for “tuning out” by asking them to come up with a plan for what they would do if they “turned off TV, video games and PCs for a whole week?” (p. 249). The “tune out challenge” resulted in a reduction of media exposure (80%) displaced into active leisure pursuits. A critical aspect of this intervention was the contract drawn up in advance, with the children setting their own goals and strategies (Kline). In this view, the state is justified in trying to level the playing field, by using social marketing to offer information as well as alternative, healthier choices that can be freely accepted or rejected (Rothschild). Conclusion A real concern is that when people are treated like children, they become like children, retaining their desires and appetites but abdicating responsibility for their individual choices to the state (Knag). Some smokers, for example, declare that they will continue to smoke until the government bans smoking (Brown). Governments and social marketers have a responsibility to fund/design campaigns so that the audience views the message as informative rather than proscriptive. Joffe and Mindell (967) advocated the notion of a “canny state” with “less reliance on telling people what to do and more emphasis on making healthy choices easier”. Finally, one of the central tenets of marketing is the concept of “exchange” – the marketer must identify the benefits to be gained from buying a product. In social marketing terms, interference in an individual’s right to act freely can be effective and justified when the benefits are clearly identifiable and credible. Rothschild described marketing’s role as providing a middle point between libertarianism and paternalism, offering free choice and incentives to behave in ways that benefit the common good. Rather than shaking a finger at the individual (along the lines of earlier “Don’t Do Drugs” campaigns), the “Super Nanny” state, via social marketing, can inform and engage individuals in ways that make healthier choices more appealing and the individual feel more empowered to choose them. References Barendregt, J.J., L. Bonneux, O.J. van der Maas. “The Health Care Costs of Smoking.” New England Journal of Medicine 337.15 (1997): 1052-7. Brown, D. Depressed Men: Angry Women: Non-Stereotypical Gender Responses to Anti-Smoking Messages in Older Smokers. Unpublished Masters dissertation, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia, 2001. Donovan, R., and N. Henley. Social Marketing: Principles and Practice. Melbourne: IP Communications, 2003. Joffe, M., and J. Mindell. “A Tentative Step towards Healthy Public Policy.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 58 (2004): 966-8. Hastings, G.B., and L. MacFadyen. “The Limitations of Fear Messages.” Tobacco Control 11 (2002): 73-5. Hastings, G.B., M. Stead, and A.M. Macintosh. “Rethinking Drugs Prevention: Radical Thoughts from Social Marketing.” Health Education Journal 61.4 (2002): 347-64. Henley, N. “You Will Die! Mass Media Invocations of Existential Dread.” M/C Journal 5.1 (2002). 1 May 2006 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0203/youwilldie.php 〉 . Henley, N., and J. Jackson. “Is It ‘Too Bloody Late’? Older People’s Response to the National Physical Activity Guidelines.” Journal of Research for Consumers 10 (2006). 7 Aug. 2006 〈 http://www.jrconsumers.com/_data/page/3180/ NPAGs_paper_consumer_version_may_06.pdf 〉 . Holt, T. The Rise of the Nanny State: How Consumer Advocates Try to Run Our Lives. US: Capital Research Centre, 1995. Kline, S. “Countering Children’s Sedentary Lifestyles: An Evaluative Study of a Media-Risk Education Approach.” Childhood 12.2 (2005): 239-58. Knag, S. “The Almighty, Impotent State: Or, the Crisis of Authority.” Independent Review 1.3 (1997): 397-413. Laczniak, G.R., R.F. Lusch, and P. Murphy. “Social Marketing: Its Ethical Dimensions.” Journal of Marketing 43 (Spring 1979): 29-36. Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed. J.W. Yolton. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1690/1961. Marmot, M.G., and R.G. Wilkinson, R.G., eds. Social Determinants of Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Mead, L. “Telling the Poor What to Do.” Public Interest 6 Jan. 1998. 1 May 2006 〈 http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/~soss/Courses/PA974/Readings/week%208/Mead_1998.pdf 〉 . National Social Marketing Centre. It’s Our Health! Realising the Potential of Effective Social Marketing. Summary Report. 7 Aug. 2006 http://www.nsms.org.uk/images/CoreFiles/NCCSUMMARYItsOurHealthJune2006.pdf 〉 . Nozick, R. Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974. O’Connell, J.K., and J.H. Price. “Ethical Theories for Promoting Health through Behavioral Change.” Journal of School Health 53.8 (1983): 476-9. Rasmussen, S.R., E. Prescott, T.I.A. Sorensen, and J. Sogaard. “The Total Lifetime Costs of Smoking”. European Journal of Public Health 14 (2004): 95-100. Rothschild, M. “Carrots, Sticks, and Promises: A Conceptual Framework for the Management of Public Health and Social Issue Behaviors.” Journal of Marketing 63.4 (1999): 24-37. Smith, A. “Setting a Strategy for Health.” British Medical Journal 304.6823 (8 Feb. 1992): 376-9. Triggle, N. “From Nanny State to a Helping Hand”. BBC News 25 July 2006. 9 Aug. 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5214276.stm 〉 . “UK Public Wants a ‘Nanny State’”. BBC News 28 June 2004. 9 Aug. 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3839447.stm 〉 . United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 18 Sep. 2001 http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm 〉 . Wikler, D. “Persuasion and Coercion for Health: Ethical Issues in Government Efforts to Change Life-Styles.” Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society 56.3 (1978): 303-38. Yach, D., D. Stuckler, and K.D. Brownwell. “Epidemiological and Economic Consequences of the Global Epidemics of Obesity and Diabetes.” Nature Medicine 12.1 (2006): 62-6. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Henley, Nadine. "Free to Be Obese in a ‘Super Nanny State’?." M/C Journal 9.4 (2006). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/6-henley.php 〉 . APA Style Henley, N. (Sep. 2006) "Free to Be Obese in a ‘Super Nanny State’?," M/C Journal, 9(4). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/6-henley.php 〉 .

Abstract: At least as far back as classical Greek times, humankind has speculated over the complexities of creativity as a concept and the modes of its transmission (Madden 133-134). This paper considers what happens when our inherited conceptions of creativity collide with the World Wide Web. It concludes with a brief survey of the Creativity Resource Portal, a current on-line project managed by the authors and related to the conceptual issues raised in the body of the text. Today, creativity has moved beyond its traditional home in the rhetoric of the philosopher and the exploits of the artist to form an integral part of both the theory and practice of a myriad of disciplines. Health professionals (Dossey; Kirklin & Meakin; Meites, Bein & Shafer; Rees; Satalof), scientists (Bohn 1-3, 13-15; Culross), educators (Guilford; Sawyer; Sternberg & Williams; Wilks) and those involved in the corporate world (Forbes & Domm; Mauzy & Harriman; Robinson & Stern) all consider creativity to be a fundamental criterion by which they measure and achieve their successes. In this way, however, creativity has become something of an over-burdened signifier. Now the market is flooded with highly idealised and ever expanding models for understanding and transmitting creativity, in which the medium (transmission) strives to outdo the message (creativity itself). We are not attempting here to arbitrate between these various models with a view to providing a rank order of creativity. Instead, we want to focus on and explore the ways in which recent technological developments, primarily the internet, have been, and might be, used to transmit and facilitate new directions and expressions of creativity and the creative process itself. Although the internet has no single inventor or birth date, its origins lie in the communication system devised by the RAND corporation in the 1960s: a system designed to survive a nuclear war because it had no central point of control. To this extent, one could say that its initial egalitarianism tips towards the expression of creativity. From here, the internet evolved through various mutations, such as APRANET and Bulletin Boards, to become the World Wide Web that emerged in the 1990s. Since then, the internet has encroached further and further into our everyday lives: we buy and sell goods at sites like Amazon or E-bay, we communicate to the world via email accounts at Hotmail or Yahoo, we court potential partners at Lavalife or Okcupid, and we engage in scholarly debates on sites such as M/C – Media and Culture. The point here is that the sheer ubiquity of the internet has brought about a quiet revolution in our everyday modes of creativity. Web navigation, for example, is heavily dependent on the creativity of the user to move through virtual space, even or perhaps especially when he/she must counter the ‘point and click’ inducements of advertising and marketing strategies. Little wonder then that the emergence of creativity as a fundamental tenet for success across a wide array of disciplines, coupled with the pervasiveness of cyberspace, has led to an explosion of both the production and transmission of creativity on-line. One such development is the transmission and dissemination of already created products via the web: that is, products hijacked from the ‘real’. In its most controversial and publicized form, the creative output of musicians has become tender for trade between individuals who subscribe to programs such as Napster and Limewire. Beyond this, the internet extends ever outwards in a panoply of both solicited and pirated images and video clips of people’s creative output. Here the internet seems to move beyond the liberating potential that Benjamin saw in technology’s ability to reproduce the image (Benjamin) towards the simulacra (or hyper-real copies of the ‘real’) proposed by Baudrillard (Baudrillard). On-line creativity has not, however, been limited to the reproduction of artistic output that exists in the ‘real’. As with any practice fundamental to the expression of the human condition, creativity has found new and exciting ways to express itself on-line. For example, digital art has emerged as a serious artistic pursuit since the late 20th century. Here, a number of artists have fused their creative ability and their technological skills to generate new ways in which their creativity can be transmitted. A cyber-poet may meld both the classical poetic forms of stanza and rhyme with the language of HTML or Java to create a cyber-poem (see the work of Komninos Zervos). Visual artists such as Han Hoogerbrugge have also been able to successfully adapt their works to the digital world: Hooderbrugge converted a comic strip he wrote in the mid-1990s to a series of digital animations. As well as this, new on-line formats such as blogs have been used by a number of artists to express their creativity in new and interesting ways (see the work of Olia Lialina). Other artists have dived even further into the simulacra, preferring the aesthetic value of the code itself over the presence of images or words that might signify something in the ‘real’ (see this work by Jason Nelson). Unlike traditional art forms, these emerging digital art forms are intensively interactive and thereby encourage the creativity of their audience. By allowing the artistic product itself to be manipulated, digital artists facilitate new ways of ‘reading’ art. It is tempting then to offer the internet up as something of a creative utopia – an Aladdin’s Cave – a place where creativity, in all its manifestations, can be transmitted to the masses. However, in the final chapter of her book The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim discusses the notion of a ‘cyber-utopia’ and asks “Who is this cyber-utopia really going to be for?” (Wertheim 295). She goes on to point out that not only do the majority of the world’s inhabitants not have access to the internet, but that out of those who do, many are discriminated against in the virtual world because of their gender, their sexuality, their skin colour or their ethnicity. (Of course, this does not necessarily make online space any less democratic than traditional technologies such as print forms). More recently, Lawrence Lessig has taken Wertheim’s questioning of cyber-utopia to its logical dystopian antithesis in his book Free Culture. Here, Lessig agues that the internet has had a direct impact on the way that culture is made. Specifically, the control that major media conglomerates and governments have over the internet has meant that “the ordinary ways in which individuals create and share culture fall within the reach of the regulation of the law, which has expanded to draw within its control a vast amount of culture and creativity that it never reached before” (Lessig 8). Have we therefore clicked open a Pandora’s Box through our incessant attempts to get wired? All technologies are open to abuse. Cyberspace is neither Aladdin’s Cave nor Pandora’s Box but simply a work in progress. And it is on this basis that we are currently creating an online Creativity Resource Portal. This portal does not attempt to resolve immediately the many debates over the nature and transmission of creativity, nor does it set out to completely resolve the quandaries raised by creativity’s cyber manifestations. Instead, it aims, at least initially, to disseminate a broad range of knowledge about creativity – thus encouraging inter-fertilization across disciplines and practices – and also to act as a catalyst for currently unrecognized ways of creating and expressing creativity in the online world. That being said, we hope that future refined manifestations of the site will possess the characteristics of a ‘laboratory’, in which the serious issues of creative freedom and control outlined in this paper – issues of transmission in the broadest sense – might be more directly engaged with. It is through this direct virtual engagement that we hope to reach conclusions capable of extending outwards to the wider, global online environment. This might happen via experiments with new types of non-hierarchical site structures, or with the level of control given to visitors over what happens in the site. But can any structures resist the exercise of power? Can egalitarianism (cyber or otherwise) ever fully eschew borders and margins? These are the questions that challenge and excite us as managers of the CRP. References Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” In Illuminations. London: Fontana, 1992. Baudrillard, Jean. The Ecstasy of Communication. New York: Semiotext(e), 1988. Bohn, David. On Creativity. London: Routledge, 1998. Culross, Rita R. “Individual and Contextual Variables among Creative Scientists: The New Work Paradigm.” Roeper Review 26.3 (2004): 126-27. Dossey, Larry. “Creativity: On Intelligence, Insight, and the Cosmic Soup.” Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine [NLM – MEDLINE] 6.1 (2000): 12-17, 108-117. Forbes, Benjamin J., and Donald R. Domm. “Creativity and Productivity: Resolving the Conflict.” S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal 69.2 (2004): 4-11. Guilford, J. P. Intelligence, Creativity, and Their Educational Implications. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp, 1968. Kirklin, Deborah, and Richard Meakin. “Editorial: Medical Students and Arts and Humanities Research: Fostering Creativity, Inquisitiveness, and Lateral Thinking.” Journal of Medical Ethics 29.2 (2003): 103. Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Madden, Christopher. “Creativity and Arts Poli cy.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 34.2 (2004): 133-139. Mauzy, Jeff, and Richard Harriman. Creativity, Inc.: Building an Inventive Organisation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003. Meites, E., S. Bein, and A. Shafer. “Researching Medicine in Context: The Arts and Humanities Medical Scholars Program.” Journal of Medical Ethics: Medical Humanities 29 (2003): 104-108. Rees, Colin. “Celebrate Creativity.” Nursing Standard 19.14-16 (2004): 20-21. Robinson, Alan G., and Sam Stern. Corporate Creativity: How Innovation and Improvement Actually Happen. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1998. Sataloff, Robert Thayer. “Interdisciplinary Opportunities for Creativity in Medicine.” Ear, Nose & Throat Journal 77.7 (1998): 530-533. Sawyer, Keith R. “Creative Teaching: Collaborative Discussion as Disciplined Improvisation.” Educational Researcher 33.2 (2004): 12-20. Sternberg, Robert J., and Wendy M. Williams. How to Develop Student Creativity. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996. Wertheim, Margaret. The Pearly Gates of Cyberspace: A History of Space from Dante to the Internet. Sydney: Doubleday, 1999. Wilks, Susan. Critical and Creative Thinking: Strategies for Classroom Inquiry. Armadale: Eleanor Curtain Publishing, 1995. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Isakhan, Ben, Jason Nelson, and Patrick West. "creativity.com: Aladdin’s Cave or Pandora’s Box?." M/C Journal 9.1 (2006). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0603/07-isakhan_nelson_west.php 〉 . APA Style Isakhan, B., J. Nelson, and P. West. (Mar. 2006) "creativity.com: Aladdin’s Cave or Pandora’s Box?," M/C Journal, 9(1). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0603/07-isakhan_nelson_west.php 〉 .

Abstract: Proponents of the free culture movement argue that contemporary, “over-zealous” copyright laws have an adverse affect on the freedoms of consumers and creators to make use of copyrighted materials. Lessig, McLeod, Vaidhyanathan, Demers, and Coombe, to name but a few, detail instances where creativity and consumer use have been hindered by copyright laws. The “intellectual land-grab” (Boyle, “Politics” 94), instigated by the increasing value of intangibles in the information age, has forced copyright owners to seek maximal protection for copyrighted materials. A propertarian approach seeks to imbue copyrighted materials with the same inalienable rights as real property, yet copyright is not a property right, because “the copyright owner … holds no ordinary chattel” (Dowling v. United States 473 US 207, 216 [1985]). A fundamental difference resides in the exclusivity of use: “If you eat my apple, then I cannot” but “if you “take” my idea, I still have it. If I tell you an idea, you have not deprived me of it. An unavoidable feature of intellectual property is that its consumption is non-rivalrous” (Lessig, Code 131). It is, as James Boyle notes, “different” to real property (Shamans 174). Vaidhyanathan observes, “copyright in the American tradition was not meant to be a “property right” as the public generally understands property. It was originally a narrow federal policy that granted a limited trade monopoly in exchange for universal use and access” (11). This paper explores the ways in which “property talk” has infiltrated copyright discourse and endangered the utility of the law in fostering free and diverse forms of creative expression. The possessiveness and exclusion that accompany “property talk” are difficult to reconcile with the utilitarian foundations of copyright. Transformative uses of copyrighted materials such as mashing, sampling and appropriative art are incompatible with a propertarian approach, subjecting freedom of creativity to arbitary licensing fees that often extend beyond the budget of creators (Collins). “Property talk” risks making transformative works an elitist form of creativity, available only to those with the financial resources necessary to meet the demands for licences. There is a wealth of decisions throughout American and English case law that sustain Vaidhyanathan’s argument (see for example, Donaldson v. Becket 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 953; Wheaton v. Peters 33 US 591 [1834]; Fox Film Corporation v. Doyal 286 US 123 [1932] ; US v. Paramount Pictures 334 US 131 [1948]; Mazer v. Stein 347 US 201, 219 [1954] ; Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aitken 422 U.S. 151 [1975]; Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co. 440 US 257 [1979] ; Dowling v. United States 473 US 207 [1985]; Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 [1985]; Luther R. Campbell a.k.a. Luke Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S 569 [1994] .). As Lemley states, however, “Congress, the courts and commentators increasingly treat intellectual property as simply a species of real property rather than as a unique form of legal protection designed to deal with public goods problems” (1-2). Although section 106 of the Copyright Act 1976 grants exclusive rights, sections 107 to 112 provide freedoms beyond the control of the copyright owner, undermining the exclusivity of s.106. Australian law similarly grants exceptions to the exclusive rights granted in section 31. Exclusivity was a principal objective of the eighteenth century Stationers’ argument for a literary property right. Sir William Blackstone, largely responsible for many Anglo-American concepts concerning the construction of property law, defined property in absolutist terms as “that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the whole universe” (2). On the topic of reprints he staunchly argued an author “has clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases, and any attempt to take it from him, or vary the disposition he has made of it, is an invasion of his right of property” (405-6). Blackstonian copyright advanced an exclusive and perpetual property right. Blackstone’s interpretation of Lockean property theory argued for a copyright that extended beyond the author’s expression and encompassed the very “style” and “sentiments” held therein. (Tonson v. Collins [1760] 96 ER 189.) According to Locke, every Man has a Property in his own Person . . . The Labour of his Body and the Work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. (287-8) Blackstone’s inventive interpretation of Locke “analogised ideas, thoughts, and opinions with tangible objects to which title may be taken by occupancy under English common law” (Travis 783). Locke’s labour theory, however, is not easily applied to intangibles because occupancy or use is non-rivalrous. The appropriate extent of an author’s proprietary right in a work led Locke himself to a philosophical impasse (Bowrey 324). Although Blackstonian copyright was suppressed by the House of Lords in the eighteenth century (Donaldson v. Becket [1774] 17 Cobbett Parliamentary History, col. 953) and by the Supreme Court sixty years later (Wheaton v. Peters 33 US 591 [1834] ), it has never wholly vacated copyright discourse. “Property talk” is undesirable in copyright discourse because it implicates totalitarian notions such as exclusion and inalienable private rights of ownership with no room for freedom of creativity or to use copyrighted materials for non-piracy related purposes. The notion that intellectual property is a species of property akin with real property is circulated by media companies seeking greater control over copyrighted materials, but the extent to which “property talk” has been adopted by the courts and scholars is troubling. Lemley (3-5) and Bell speculate whether the term “intellectual property” carries any responsibility for the propertisation of intangibles. A survey of federal court decisions between 1943 and 2003 reveals an exponential increase in the usage of the term. As noted by Samuelson (398) and Cohen (379), within the spheres of industry, culture, law, and politics the word “property” implies a broader scope of rights than those associated with a grant of limited monopoly. Music United claims “unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is JUST AS ILLEGAL AS SHOPLIFTING A CD”. James Brown argues sampling from his records is tantamount to theft: “Anything they take off my record is mine . . . Can I take a button off your shirt and put it on mine? Can I take a toenail off your foot – is that all right with you?” (Miller 1). Equating unauthorised copying with theft seeks to socially demonise activities occurring outside of the permission culture currently being fostered by inventive interpretations of the law. Increasing propagation of copyright as the personal property of the creator and/or copyright owner is instrumental in efforts to secure further legislative or judicial protection: Since 1909, courts and corporations have exploited public concern for rewarding established authors by steadily limiting the rights of readers, consumers, and emerging artists. All along, the author was deployed as a straw man in the debate. The unrewarded authorial genius was used as a rhetorical distraction that appealed to the American romantic individualism. (Vaidhyanathan 11) The “unrewarded authorial genius” was certainly tactically deployed in the eighteenth century in order to generate sympathy in pleas for further protection (Feather 71). Supporting the RIAA, artists including Britney Spears ask “Would you go into a CD store and steal a CD? It’s the same thing – people going into the computers and logging on and stealing our music”. The presence of a notable celebrity claiming file-sharing is equivalent to stealing their personal property is a more publicly acceptable spin on the major labels’ attempts to maintain a monopoly over music distribution. In 1997, Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft Act which extended copyright protection into the digital realm and introduced stricter penalties for electronic reproduction. The use of “theft” in the title clearly aligns the statute with a propertarian portrayal of intangibles. Most movie fans will have witnessed anti-piracy propaganda in the cinema and on DVDs. Analogies between stealing a bag and downloading movies blur fundamental distinctions in the rivalrous/non-rivalrous nature of tangibles and intangibles (Lessig Code, 131). Of critical significance is the infiltration of “property talk” into the courtrooms. In 1990 Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote: Patents give a right to exclude, just as the law of trespass does with real property … Old rhetoric about intellectual property equating to monopoly seemed to have vanished, replaced by a recognition that a right to exclude in intellectual property is no different in principle from the right to exclude in physical property … Except in the rarest case, we should treat intellectual and physical property identically in the law – which is where the broader currents are taking us. (109, 112, 118) Although Easterbrook refers to patents, his endorsement of “property talk” is cause for concern given the similarity with which patents and copyrights have been historically treated (Ou 41). In Grand Upright v. Warner Bros. Judge Kevin Duffy commenced his judgment with the admonishment “Thou shalt not steal”. Similarly, in Jarvis v. A & M Records the court stated “there can be no more brazen stealing of music than digital sampling”. This move towards a propertarian approach is misguided. It runs contrary to the utilitarian principles underpinning copyright ideology and marginalises freedoms protected by the fair use doctrine, hence Justice Blackman’s warning that “interference with copyright does not easily equate with” interference with real property (Dowling v. United States 473 US 207, 216 [1985]). The framing of copyright in terms of real property privileges private monopoly over, and to the detriment of, the public interest in free and diverse creativity as well as freedoms of personal use. It is paramount that when dealing with copyright cases, the courts remain aware that their decisions involve not pure economic regulation, but regulation of expression, and what may count as rational where economic regulation is at issue is not necessarily rational where we focus on expression – in a Nation constitutionally dedicated to the free dissemination of speech, information, learning and culture. (Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 US 186 [2003] [J. Breyer dissenting]). Copyright is the prize in a contest of property vs. policy. As Justice Blackman observed, an infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. (Dowling v. United States 473 US 207, 217-218 [1985] ). Copyright policy places a great deal of control and cultural determinism in the hands of the creative industries. Without balance, oppressive monopolies form on the back of rights granted for the welfare of society in general. If a society wants to be independent and rich in diverse forms of cultural production and free expression, then the courts cannot continue to apply the law from within a propertarian paradigm. The question of whether culture should be determined by control or freedom in the interests of a free society is one that rapidly requires close attention – “it’s no longer a philosophical question but a practical one”. References Bayat, Asef. “Un-Civil Society: The Politics of the ‘Informal People.’” Third World Quarterly 18.1 (1997): 53-72. Bell, T. W. “Author’s Welfare: Copyright as a Statutory Mechanism for Redistributing Rights.” Brooklyn Law Review 69 (2003): 229. Blackstone, W. Commentaries on the Laws of England: Volume II. New York: Garland Publishing, 1978. (Reprint of 1783 edition.) Boyle, J. Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996. Boyle, J. “A Politics of Intellectual Property: Environmentalism for the Net?” Duke Law Journal 47 (1997): 87. Bowrey, K. “Who’s Writing Copyright’s History?” European Intellectual Property Review 18.6 (1996): 322. Cohen, J. “Overcoming Property: Does Copyright Trump Privacy?” University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 375 (2002). Collins, S. “Good Copy, Bad Copy.” (2005) M/C Journal 8.3 (2006). http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0507/02-collins.php 〉 . Coombe, R. The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998. Demers, J. Steal This Music. Athens, Georgia: U of Georgia P, 2006. Easterbrook, F. H. “Intellectual Property Is Still Property.” (1990) Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13 (1990): 108. Feather, J. Publishing, Piracy and Politics: An Historical Study of Copyright in Britain. London: Mansell, 1994. Lemley, M. “Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding.” Texas Law Review 83 (2005): 1031. Lessig, L. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books, 1999. Lessing, L. The Future of Ideas. New York: Random House, 2001. Lessig, L. Free Culture. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Locke, J. Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1988. McLeod, K. “How Copyright Law Changed Hip Hop: An Interview with Public Enemy’s Chuck D and Hank Shocklee.” Stay Free (2002). 14 June 2006 http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/20/public_enemy.html 〉 . McLeod, K. “Confessions of an Intellectual (Property): Danger Mouse, Mickey Mouse, Sonny Bono, and My Long and Winding Path as a Copyright Activist-Academic.” Popular Music & Society 28 (2005): 79. McLeod, K. Freedom of Expression: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity. United States: Doubleday Books, 2005. Miller, M.W. “Creativity Furor: High-Tech Alteration of Sights and Sounds Divides the Art World.” Wall Street Journal (1987): 1. Ou, T. “From Wheaton v. Peters to Eldred v. Reno: An Originalist Interpretation of the Copyright Clause.” Berkman Center for Internet & Society (2000). 14 June 2006 http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvashcroft/cyber/OuEldred.pdf 〉 . Samuelson, P. “Information as Property: Do Ruckelshaus and Carpenter Signal a Changing Direction in Intellectual Property Law?” Catholic University Law Review 38 (1989): 365. Travis, H. “Pirates of the Information Infrastructure: Blackstonian Copyright and the First Amendment.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 15 (2000): 777. Vaidhyanathan, S. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: New York UP, 2003. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Collins, Steve. "‘Property Talk’ and the Revival of Blackstonian Copyright." M/C Journal 9.4 (2006). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/5-collins.php 〉 . APA Style Collins, S. (Sep. 2006) "‘Property Talk’ and the Revival of Blackstonian Copyright," M/C Journal, 9(4). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0609/5-collins.php 〉 .

Abstract: The scan is both the quick glance and the measured study, it is a survey of the exterior and an interrogation of hidden interiors. Practices of scanning are a response to the increased number of things to consider and the reduced amount of time to consider them. Scanning demarcates that which is seen as relevant, interesting and important into ever increasing ‘to do’ lists, at the same time dismissing that which is not. These questions of importance or relevance are often decided through cursory glances and greater consideration is regularly left for ‘later’. Scanning engages questions about surveillance, about the way in which we surveil our self and our surrounds, and about the way we submit our self and our surrounds to surveillance by others. In many ways scanning has an impact on the way in which authority is practiced, in creative practice, scholarship and daily life. Our feature article in this issue is by Lelia Green who discusses the way in which scanning radio frequencies, and particularly the shared environment created by the Royal Flying Doctor’s Service radio service, drew together a community of remote West Australians. “Scanning the Satellite Signal in Remote Western Australia” reflects upon the way scanning shared communication signals provided virtual connections at times lost by the introduction of technologies that provided more direct communication modes, such as the telephone. Lelia’s article demonstrates the scan as a reading practice often enabled by, or employed to negotiate, communication technologies. This is one theme that runs throughout this edition of M/C Journal. Simultaneously, “Scanning the Satellite” highlights the everyday nature of scanning, locating it within a history of communication developments that emphasise the ordinary status of scanning as a reading practice for engaging with the world around. This is the second theme that connects the articles in this edition. The scan is in itself nothing new; both the quick glance and the measured study are common practices. The articles gathered in this edition of M/C Journal consider scanning as a principal mode of engaging with the world. A quick glance at the morning weather, a hurried reading of a passing crowd, the habitual assessment of ourselves and our surroundings, an observation to ensure that everything is in its place. These are the practices of the scan that inform our everyday choices. They may be quick, habitual and disengaged, or, equally, measured, considered interrogations. The scan often evokes questions of surveillance, as Alexis Harley explores in “Resurveying Eden: Panoptica in Imperfect Worlds.” Examining the power relationship imposed by surveillance, Harley compares three observed states: the Bible’s Eden, Thomas More’s Utopia and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner. Angelika Melchior also explores scanning as a mode of surveillance in “Tag and Trace Marketing”. Considering the Radio Frequency Identification tag (RFID), Melchior explores both the privacy concerns raised, and new business opportunities offered, by a technology that allows items to be continually scanned post-sale. In each of these texts surveillance is an intrusive practice that produces self-consciousness in the participants of both utopian and dystopian societies. Yet the self-consciousness that is so forcefully evoked through the practices of surveillance is provocatively abstracted by the commonplace practices of the scan. Here, the power relationships that are so familiar to discourses of surveillance are played out not by the ‘all-seeing powerful eye’ but by the practices that constitute the scan. They are the methods we apply when we scan our selves, our natural environments, our social environments, and, increasingly, our communications environments. The scan is a learnt short hand for accessing that which we consider important or interesting, alongside that which is in need of greater consideration. Our attention is particularly directed towards the ways in which we scan our communications environments. The broad range of communications content, platforms and technologies has produced an enormous communications environment to scan. There are channels to surf, sites to visit, stations to tune in to, pages to scroll, inboxes to clear, list-servs to read, blogs to catch up on; and all before lunch! Scanning our communications environments allows us to designate and relegate information that we consider to be not-for-us, for later consumption, of great newsworthiness or interest, or for immediate consumption. The cover image for this edition of M/C Journal, Julia Hennock’s “Future Perfect”, presents a speculative technological device so amenable to the scan: it shows a lens capable of producing perfect vision in all conditions. Her image is a reminder that scanning is very much a technological practice, and as changes to our media and communication environments encourage new scans, new tools will emerge to assist us in our response. Considering the scan as a technological practice is an element explored also in Yonatan Vinitsky’s film PANDEMONIUM. Vinitsky uses a flat bed scanner to capture 40 images of a man’s face, editing these together into a work that challenges the purposes of a domestic scanner. Jolting and at times erratic, Vinitsky encourages viewers to scan the film itself, glimpsing the still images as they pass. Robin Rimbaud’s “Scan and Deliver” also considers the constructive properties of the scan. Finding that the scan inevitably uncovers much superfluous information, Rimbaud constructed soundscapes from the excess data, discerning useful patterns from what is otherwise ostensibly random noise. Each of these creative texts considers the scan as a productive practice. This theme is also present in Charlene Elliot’s “Colour™: Law and the Sensory Scan”. Elliot positions the scan as the fundamental experience of the brand, where the emotive identity of a product or business is ideally conjured through a glimpse of colour. Colour trademarks attempt to compress a broad range of information, emotion and association into a form that can be scanned. These trademarks rely on the act of the scan to cut through cluttered advertising environs; colours draw attention, take no time to absorb and cut across cultural boundaries, they’re ideal for the scan. Michelle Kelly’s “Eminent Library Figures: A Reader” similarly considers the way the scan can deal with excesses of information. Discussing the function of the Cutter-Sanborn library classification system, Kelly considers the implications for authorship of the reduction of information into a scannable code – the author numbers written on the spine of a book. These numbers offer the potential of two types of scanning activity. Reducing author detail to a short string of characters, Cutter-Sanborn numbers allow the books in a collection to be quickly surveyed, individual copies to be located and their position amidst a collection specified. Representing a broader dataset, however, these numbers invite what Kelly refers to as an “analytical scan”, deeper investigation and further extrapolation of their meaning. Recognising the scan as a legitimate form of reading practice is a theme present in many of the articles in this edition of M/C Journal. Elizabeth Delaney’s “Scanning the Front Pages: The Schapelle Corby Judgment” examines the newspaper coverage of the Schapelle Corby case by looking at the front pages of Australian tabloid papers. As with Elliot’s piece, the scan is revealed here as an everyday activity, an ordinary practice used to trace a path through a saturated information environment. As a reading practice, the scan allows this material to be accessed quickly, it allows people to fit the consumption of information into their daily lives. Studying the way newspapers capitalise on the scan reveals the implications of editorial decisions that facilitate this reading practice. These methods go beyond the use of ‘screaming headlines’ to sell their message, using the ‘naturalised’ habits of the scanning reader to purposefully present their position. Henk Huijser turns to consider the implications for tertiary education of the ordinariness and prevalence of this reading practice. “Are Scanning Minds Dangerous Minds, or Merely Suspicious Minds? Harnessing the Net Generation’s Ability to Scan” considers the shifts in tertiary education delivery and assessment modes needed to respond to a student body more familiar with the scan than the deep read. After all, if scanning is a practice that can be learnt, it is a useful pedagogical tool and process that should be taught. In many regards scanning seems a poor response to what is often rich and valuable information. But it does allow for the filtering of information. Stephanie Dickison’s “So Many Books, So Little Time” playfully addresses the baneful outcome experienced by the reader adept at the scan: the every growing, personalised “to do list.” Dickison shows how scanning provides readers with some simple choices – to accept or reject, to classify as urgent or non-urgent – in the creation of a list for planned future consumption. Here, the scan is the quick glance for the later considered study. And with so much scannable information available why should we not, we argue, scan a lot rather than read a little? As we are constantly scanning, we are, after all, constantly reading and ultimately negotiating with, interacting with, learning from, and understanding about a whole range of environments. Positioning the scan as a legitimate and worthwhile reading practice shows that literacy (in terms of reading, writing and pedagogical practices) is perhaps equally a matter of breadth as it is of depth. Acknowledgments We thank Laura Marshall and Louise Firth for their work in copyediting the articles for this issue. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Green, Joshua, and Adam Swift. "Scan." M/C Journal 8.4 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0508/00-editorial.php 〉 . APA Style Green, J., and A. Swift. (Aug. 2005) "Scan," M/C Journal, 8(4). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0508/00-editorial.php 〉 .

Abstract: It seems not insignificant that the cult film Donnie Darko is set in the final stages of the Bush-Dukakis election campaign, which had the twin effects of inaugurating the Bush presidential dynasty and making “liberal” an insurmountably derogatory term in American politics. Donnie’s gift of seeing into the future is, at least superficially, a reaction to his medication for “emotional problems”. But the count-down to his apocalyptic date with a giant bunny-rabbit also coincides with the demise of any remaining hope for a certain kind of progressive Left politics. With the options for escaping a conservative small town life fast disappearing, an impenetrable theory of time-travel appears to offer a plausible reprieve from Donnie’s destiny. As we learn very early in the movie, however, even time-travel cannot offer salvation: Donnie, like a particular idea of America, is doomed. Strangely representative of cultural studies’ theoretical preoccupations, Donnie’s character is unavoidably implicated in an omnipresent therapeutic culture while also demonstrating good taste in 80s music, an attraction to mischief and a fitful enthusiasm for saving the world. In the context of this editorial, the film acts as a useful retrospective archive of the moment when “affect” came to wide attention as the key site for politics in the United States. Donnie Darko documents the rise and spectacular fall of Jim Cunningham (Patrick Swayze), a charismatic motivational speaker and incidental kiddy-porn ringleader who makes a fortune with his book, Attitudinal Beliefs. Cunningham’s converts find liberation by freeing themselves from their own fears, for according to his paradigm, there are only two features of the “energy spectrum”: fear and love. The trick to a successful life – and good grades – is to choose the “Right-eous” path of the latter (Gregg and Fuller). But as the film develops, the audience slowly comes to realise that no one will avoid the truly terrifying fate that is Grandma Death’s secret: everyone dies alone. Donnie Darko encapsulates the overwhelming nature of adolescent angst which gravitates between the “indifference of terror and boredom” and which Lawrence Grossberg has claimed to be “the most powerful and pervasive affective relations in everyday life” (184). Donnie and his peers aren’t just subject to the petty tyrannies of high-school; the film’s plot allegorises a much wider cultural shift. As Grossberg argued extensively throughout the 1990s, the strategy of new conservatives has been to conduct a political agenda at the level of affect, or what today we might recognise as “the battle for hearts and minds”. It succeeds by colonising the very mood, imagination and hope of a citizenry. When Karen Pomeroy (Drew Barrymore) is fired as English teacher at Donnie’s school – the result of a moral values campaign against a prescribed textbook – she says of the students: “We are losing them to apathy. They are slipping away”. Karen conveys despair and anger at this prospect, only to be met with the headmaster’s rebuke: “I am sorry that you have failed”. Here the apparently naïve optimism of a brilliant teacher is subject to the same indignant script her students face: individualised torment for a structurally ingrained lack of hope. Grossberg has consistently urged that cultural studies intellectuals recognise scenarios like these as the perniciously mundane locations where the fight for the future is waged: When the very possibility of political struggle is being erased – not because the scene of politics (or the public sphere) has disappeared in some postmodern apocalypse, but because there is an active attempt to use popular discourses to restructure the possibilities of everyday life – the political intellectual has no choice but to enter into the struggle over affect in order to articulate new ways of caring. (23) This issue of M/C Journal reveals some of the many ways this objective continues to be thwarted in the current political climate and in contexts which veer to varying degrees from the mainstream political situation in the United States. In the lead article for the issue, Shane McGrath makes the point that the politics of compassion are far from straightforward in an era of “compassionate conservatism” but that they are noticeably straight (see also Berlant). One of the most important distinctions he asks us to make is to “recognise and affirm feelings of compassion while questioning the politics that seem to emanate from those feelings”. The essay that follows is a helpful explanation of the theoretical legacies behind “Feeling, Emotion and Affect”. Eric Shouse provides an introduction to the vocabulary that many writers for this issue share and in some cases challenge. “The importance of affect”, Shouse claims, is that “in many cases the message consciously received may be of less import to the receiver of that message than his or her non-conscious affective resonance with the source of the message”. This is precisely the difficulty of forming any rational model of political opposition to apparently personable leaders like Bush, or concertedly “ordinary” leaders like John Howard: a diverse population will often interpret a manifest message through a quite different set of unconscious criteria. Anne Aly and Mark Balnaves offer an example of this kind of affective resonance in their article, “The Atmosfear of Terror”. Chilling riots around Sydney’s southern beaches in the week of this issue’s production lend added pertinence to their reading which argues that attitudes towards Muslims in Australia are “less to do with the actual threat of a terrorist attack on Australian soil and more to do with….reprisal for the terrorist attacks” that have already occurred elsewhere. Describing a quite different and highly intimate experience of fear is Lessa Bonniface, Lelia Green and Maurice Swanson’s essay documenting their work developing HeartNET, a Website devoted to discussion amongst heart patients. This collaborative project is part of an Australian Research Council linkage grant and illustrates how cultural theory can be tested and extended in productive partnerships with the wider community. Megan Watkins’s eloquent essay on the affects of classroom practice shares a similar attention to corporeality in the way that it highlights the neglected bodily dimensions of learning and motivation, while Glen Fuller’s “The Getaway” offers a quite different example of the ways that our bodies can surprise us by betraying disciplines we may not have consciously registered. Two further essays by Beth Seaton and Margaret Hair have the specific purpose of drawing attention to affective relations otherwise suppressed in the landscapes around us, reflecting upon the ethics of acknowledging past and present trauma. The issue then embarks on a series of exciting new approaches to popular media, in Anna Gibbs’s article on the hypnotic properties of television, Leanne Downing’s introduction to the politics of “eater-tainment” accompanying block-buster films, and finally, Gregory Seigworth’s affirming reading of indie darling, Sufjan Stevens. In a fitting gesture given the imperatives Grossberg sets out, Seigworth considers the significance of Stevens’ live show in terms of an “affect of corn” that he submits as one humble exercise that might help to “redeem a future for the present”. In the amount of time since the issue’s conception “affect” has moved from being regarded as something that “cultural studies has always been crap at” (Noble) to “the new cutting edge” (Hemmings) while for some it has become “that word I never want to hear again” (Sofoulis). As Elspeth Probyn notes in the contribution that closes the issue, witnessing a cherished theoretical interest become fashionable can be bemusing and disabling – what I hope these essays demonstrate is that fashion need not relinquish usefulness. This issue of M/C Journal involved some tough editorial decisions due to a remarkably high number of submissions. I thank all of the writers who offered work for consideration as well as those who responded so enthusiastically to my invitation. Thanks also to the referees who gave their time and expertise and the correspondents whose patience was doubtlessly tested in the finishing stages. I am particularly indebted to Laura Marshall and Neysa Ellison-Stone for their excellent and speedy copy-editing. Finally, the stunning cover image for this M/C Journal is “Collage” by Jane Simon with stills from Undiegate, a Super-8 film by Marian Prickett and Jane Simon (Melbourne, 2002). Its rich texture, exciting juxtaposition and overriding implication of possibility couldn’t have been more fitting my hopes for this issue. References Berlant, Lauren. “Introduction: Compassion (and Withholding).” Compassion: The Culture and Politics of an Emotion. Ed. Lauren Berlant. Essays from the English Institute. London: New York, 2004. Donnie Darko. [motion picture] Directed by R. Kelly, 2001. Gregg, Melissa and Glen Fuller. “Where Is the Law in ‘Unlawful Combatant’? Resisting the Refrain of the Right-eous.” Cultural Studies Review 11.2 (2005): 147-59. Grossberg, Lawrence. Dancing in Spite of Myself: Essays on Popular Culture. Durham: Duke UP, 1997. Hemmings, Clare. “Invoking Affect: Cultural Theory and the Ontological Turn.” Cultural Studies 19.5 (2005): 548-67. Noble, Greg. “What Cultural Studies Is Crap At.” Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Newsletter October, 2004. Sofoulis, Zoe. Comment at Culture Fix: The Cultural Studies Association of Australasia Annual Conference, University of Technology, Sydney, November 2005. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Gregg, Melissa. "Affect." M/C Journal 8.6 (2005). echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0512/01-editorial.php 〉 . APA Style Gregg, M. (Dec. 2005) "Affect," M/C Journal, 8(6). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ? 〉 from 〈 http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0512/01-editorial.php 〉 .