[Nettime-bold] hacker culture

[Francis Hwang <sera@fhwang.net>]

MWP wrote:

>I can't imagine anything more oxymoronic than the notion of a hacker
>"culture." Culture serves to circumscribe a common ethos within society.
>Hackers are by nature antisocial and anti-groupthink. (Not all, but
>many.) Magazines like 2600 strike me as being intended less to create
>secure social bonds between like-minded individuals than to pass along
>various tricks of the trade such as how to crack a payphone or
>something.

2600 and the like have lots of techie tricks, to be sure, but there's 
tons of political concerns, too -- people are plenty concerned about 
the RIAA and the MPAA, just as they used to be very concerned about 
Kevin Mitnick. Hackers do form social bonds due to their activities, 
whether they meet others at conventions or on IRC.

We're edging into dangerously semantic territory, but hackers 
definitely seem to have culture to me. Most particularly, there are a 
number of common beliefs that become apparent if you spend time with 
a bunch of them at once, at, say, a "computer security conference":

- Exhaustive rigor in analyzing and criticizing arguments, 
disregarding the emotions of the people involved in the discussion
- A strong trend towards libertarian political beliefs
- An extremely high value placed on technical and conceptual understanding
- that "Information wants to be free"

... not all of these traits are positive. (For one thing, the fact 
that hacker culture tends to be very white, suburban, and male bugs 
me to no end.) But it seems like a culture to me, and even one that 
can possibly have an impact on society as a whole. Lots of non-hacker 
types have now heard the idea that "Information wants to be free." 
But who said it first?

Technology itself bears a cultural weight. Even without involving 
computers: Traditional Japanese book-binding techniques, for example, 
portray a different way of relating to the world than western 
book-binding techniques. What message has been communicated to young 
computer users now that p2p networks have given them a glimpse of 
file-sharing? Are their opinions of the RIAA different than they 
would've been 10 years ago?

Or take command-line Unix, for example. If you don't know it well, 
then a line like

ls -lS | grep "Aug  1" | more

might seem like complete gibberish. But there are a number of ideas 
embedded in Unix that aren't present in other OSs. I once read 
somewhere that the Unix way is to make a number of small, highly 
independent tools ("ls" lists files, "grep" searches for text, etc.) 
and then provide a few dependable ways for those tools to talk to 
each other (the "|" character). It betrays a certain desire to 
isolate actions in order to enhance rational thinking. (It might also 
be related to the fact that many hackers are libertarians.)

I would agree that hacking doesn't necessarily have much force as 
social protest -- not every culture will do that. In particular, the 
strong tendency towards individualism can make that difficult.

>Hacking has already
>become somewhat of a mainstream cultural activity, with large
>corporations even hiring hackers to ferret out internal weaknesses,
>sabotage copyright violators etc. Hacking hardly threatens the social
>order in any big way anymore (if it ever did). At worst a few hundred
>credit card #s might get pilfered now and again, causing capitalism to
>burp slightly in releasing the gas of greed that has been building up
>inside of its toxic bubble. Art, by contrast (borrowing Blanchot's
>distinction), remains a force that lies astringently outside of culture,
>threatening to undermine it by exposing its contradictions and defining
>where it is most self-destructively undermining itself. I know of no
>other way to do this, other than through political violence. That even
>the most intransigent of art inevitably reverts back to culture over
>time is not a strike against it, but an acknowledgment of its abiding
>potency and value. Art lives on, indeed prevails, if only because
>culture keeps refusing to believe in it.

So no artist has ever worked for a major corporation?

If hacking hardly threatens the social order any more, why do we keep 
sending hackers to jail and passing more federal laws to send even 
more hackers to jail?

Most art is useless, self-indulgent crap. So is most hacking. Beyond 
that I'm not sure how much broad comparisons of either are useful.

Francis
-- 

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold