charting the waves of augmentation

8/2/2019 Charting the Waves of Augmentation

1/7

Charting the Waves of Augmentation:

Textual Dualism & Augmented Reality inthe Russian Empire

Jeremy [email protected]

@jsantley

Presentation Paper for Theorizing the Web 2012Conference

14 April 2012
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/7

I want to thank you all for coming to a presentation that has absolutely nothingdirectly to do with the web and dwells, mostly, in the nineteenth century. Don'tworry- we will still manage to put our toe in twentieth century waters but digitalbits won't be making an appearance here. I'll be talking today about Russianpeasants, rumors, a little bit of Gramsci, 1861, transliterating Jewish names, as

well as Trotsky and his dreams of Soviet smychka. The intersection of atomsand bits, the emergence of digital dualist conceptions and practices, along withthe omnipresent components of augmented reality can be traced to a time whenonly the presence of textual sources challenged augmented conceptions. Toalter a phrase from McLuhan's 'Gutenberg Galaxy', I won't be charting theconstellation but rather the wave of augmentation as it ebbed and flowed acrosssocial space.

What do I mean by 'charting the waves of augmentation'? To understand how Iapproach this topic, let's visit the work of Simon Franklin, a scholar whospecializes in analyzing writing technologies across Russian history. In his most

recent article for the journal Kritika, titled 'Mapping the Graphosphere' Franklinmakes the following observation:

"There may be one or several cultures using a given technology, and in each ofthose cultures the interrelations among technologies may function similarly ordifferently."

I like this quote because it illuminates the interaction of textual dualist normsespoused by Tsarist authorities and the augmented reality concepts so oftenembraced by groups considered to be in the weaker position of power. Thecentral conflict between textual dualist claims to authority and augmented realityclaims to authority rests on terms such as asynchronicity and high or low mobilitypotentials.

I have found it useful to isolate inquires of expressed knowledge through alimited scope: to what degree does a knowledge construct allow the user ortransmitter to modify the contents? Items that resist modification- a printed bookor document, for example- I classify as 'low mobility' constructs, while items thateither allow or encourage modification- a folktale or rumor for example- I classifyas 'high mobility' constructs'.

Of course, binary distinctions only go so far in their descriptive power so it wouldbe best to remember that knowledge constructs can assume hybrid form- suchas a 'fill-in-the-blank' document (insert picture of taxes). Often, when twoconstructs encounter each other in social space it becomes evident that theknowledge perspectives are asynchronous and unless this asynchronicity isresolved or transmuted it produces disruptive effects. For the period underexamination, this largely amounted to a conflict between low mobility textualsources produced by Russian authorities and high mobility oral sources utilizedthrough folklore, use of rumor or just plainly stating one's name.


3/7

If we accept, as Franklin does, that multiple cultures exist and interoperate, thenwe must begin to chart the waves of augmentation or the degree to which aparticular culture permeates the milieu of space under investigation. Becauseaugmented effects ebb and flow based on a participant's physical location and

technological utilization, documenting permeation of a particular culture intosocial space is a continuously dynamic activity. Here a selection from the shortessay by Gramsci, titled 'War of Maneuver to the War of Position' provideshelpful guidance:

"the war of maneuver subsists so long as it is a question of of winning positionswhich are not decisive, so that all the resources of the State's hegemony cannotbe mobilized. But when these positions have lost their value and only thedecisive positions are at stake, then one passes over to siege warfare; this isconcentrated, difficult, and requires exceptional qualities of patience andinventiveness."

Take, for example, the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. Fear of peasant'interpretation' of the historic declaration worried many in the tsar's domains.Whereas previous efforts to reform, but not abolish, serfdom made peasantinterpretations of freedom a moot but still dangerous question (then, a war ofmaneuver), the new emancipation edict dictating terms of land allotments andmortgage payments made peasant interpretations of 'freedom' (now a war ofposition) a much more important issue to authorities and nobles alike.

This is because the edict would be delivered by a stable, low mobility textualartifact that, while paying lip service to the 'rule of law' ideals made moreprominent with the rise of liberalism, in fact only provided a thin veneer tomaintain inequalities rife within the absolutist Russian system. Peasants werelargely illiterate and relied upon easily modified high mobility oral interpretationsto challenge edicts they felt were either unfair, unjustified or would otherwiseupend established relationships. Essentially, peasants understood rhetoricalshifts of the 'social contract' introduced by textual modifications even though theythemselves did not, generally, use textual technologies in the workings of theirdaily life. Thus the increasing trend introduced by Peter the Great towardsasserting textual dualist norms, which created inherent asynchronicities withaugmented reality, was not only noted but challenged by peasant communitiesthrough patient and inventive means.

Take for example the abolitionist governor of Kaluga province who sent out 167representatives known as the 'heralds of liberty' to travel to every peasantcommunity in order that the most 'relevant' sections of the emancipation statuteswould be read and interpreted correctly. It should also be noted that TsarAlexander II signed the emancipation edict on the anniversary of his accession,but held off releasing the text to the public until the advent of Lent- a period whenpeasants were supposed to abstain from drinking alcohol. Beyond these


4/7

precautions by both governor and tsar alike, 80 military regiments weredispatched across European Russia in order to provide speedy relief shouldpeasant emotions become too difficult for the massively understaffed ruralpresence of Tsarist authority to quell. Bishops were instructed to tell clergymenthat peasants should be reminded of their obligations to the state and local

landowner alike, because the real fear was not necessarily peasant insurrectionbut rather that peasants would not sow/harvest the 1861 crop.

In effect, the Tsarist government knew emancipation would evolve from a war ofposition towards a war of siege as outlined by Gramsci. Their fears, while notrealized on the scale imagined, did find some justification. Daniel Field, aprominent scholar of Russian peasants, noted this description from the Khar'kovprovincial governor regarding the difficultly of getting peasants to accept the newlaws:

"Some squires, assisted by the mediators, have managed, with considerable

sacrifice of their own advantage, to persuade the peasants to accept some kindof deal, but it very often happens that after an insignificant amount of time haspassed the peasants renounce their adherence and the promises they havemade, acting under the influence of some kind of absurd rumor which happens toreach them through passersby or which is even deliberately thought up by one oftheir fellows in order to dissuade the community from the agreement it hasmade."

There is much to decipher in this gubernatorial statement. First, success has notbeen total for Khar'kov governor- only 'some squires' managed to get peasants toagree to the new land charters (the emancipation edict stipulated that peasantswere to sign 'charters' acknowledging their acceptance of the new legal terms)and even then only at 'considerable sacrifice of their own advantage'- which wasstill considerable even after making concessions. Next, after an 'insignificantamount of time' the peasants have changed their minds. This was actually atried and true tactic for peasants, who often performed delaying actions bywithholding signatures or posing endless questions over the terms of newagreements. Now we come to the juicy part as the governor states thatrecalcitrant peasants were either 'influenced' by an 'absurd rumor' transmitted viapasserby or 'deliberately' thought up by one of their own'. No matter what'considerable sacrifice' was made by the squires, it could all be undone by thecirculation of rumor.

The textual document, a low mobility construct unable to be easily changed onthe fly, found itself at the mercy of high mobility oral rumors. While theauthorities believed their new laws would ameliorate the myriad problemsassociated with serfdom, they could not hope to negate the asynchronicitesbetween peasant ideals of just and fair treatment and the values of supposedgreater 'equality' espoused by the tsar's edict.


5/7

What's even more interesting is that the governors stance falls into the 'Myth ofthe Peasant'- essentially, that peasant attitudes could only be changed by eitheran outside force (the passerby) or an inside agitator. Looking at the quote again,it is not entirely clear what provoked the peasants depicted here to 'renouncetheir adherence and the promises they have made'- was it a passerby or was it

an inside agitator? One thing is clear- 'rumor' derailed everything. But on adeeper level, the invocation of the 'peasant myth' demonstrates a paradoxicalunderstanding on both the power and obstinacy of peasant populations.Peasants could create their own rumors, but this was often written off (quiteliterally) as the act of a solitary agitator and not the act of a determined populace,while many attempts to change peasant behavior were seen as only applicable ifa 'certified' passerbys (remember the 'heralds of liberty' mentioned before?)engaged the peasant population. In effect, the peasant was not deemed capableof making their own interpretation- they had to be acted upon by an outside forceor 'rouge' element within.

We have only to look at some common refrains to get an idea how peasantsutilized 'augmented reality' claims to dispute textual sources:

'The tsar wants it, but the boyars resist."

"We belong to you, but the land belongs to us." (Field calls this "an expression ofsubmission entwined with an assertion of right"- something many using socialmedia platforms probably believe themselves)

"You discuss the law, but we know the law."

And, perhaps the most useful for our discussion today:

"The tsar is merciful, but the psar (clerk) has no mercy."

Jewish populations in Tsarist Russia understood this last refrain all too well. AsEugene Avrutin states in his book, Jews and the Imperial State: IdentificationPolitics in Tsarist Russia:

"While Jews could be easily identified visually as a collective group or defined inlegal terms, authorities found it much more challenging to document Jews asindividuals."

Avrutin states that one of the more significant changes the Russian governmentmade in documenting its population- especially Jews- was that it shifted in themiddle of the 19th century from 'tax census revisions', to that of passports, citycensus records (considered far more accurate in identifying a growing urbanpopulation) and confession specific metrical books. Metrical books recorded thebirths, baptisms, marriages and deaths that occurred in a community- in effectdelineating identity by acting as a record of an individuals denomination, legal


6/7

status, ethnic origin and place of residence. While this low mobilitydocumentation provided greater insight on the population, building a panopticgaze of greater efficiency, it could also create growing asynchronicites betweenindividuals documented and the high mobility lives those individuals actuallylived. Confusions arose when Jewish names were improperly transliterated into

Russian, confounding draft registrations or admission into higher education.Gendered gaps in metrical books arose when Crown Rabbis failed to attend afemales naming ceremony- the event at which registration of birth occurred.Corrections proved almost impossible- once an entry was made, amending thatentry required submitting a petition to the Imperial bureaucracy. Yet, as Avrutinnotes, "a change in the document- however small or inconsequential it may haveappeared- undermined the integrity of the entire record-keeping system." Whilethe low mobility, stable document provided panoptic power to the Imperial state,it could not readily adapt to the high mobility, augmented lives of subjects andthus reported only an asynchronous textual dualist reality.

Returning to the period of serf emancipation, Daniel Field's following quotestrikes at the core of the textual dualist/augmented reality conflict found in theRussian empire.

Because the reform deliberately perpetuated so many of the social andeconomic characteristics of serfdom, it may be that the regime was indulging inwishful thinking or placing hopes in the power of words, supposing great benefitsmust accrue simply because it had found the courage to declare that serfdom,the basic institution of Russian life, was abolished.

Even with the advent of a modern, ideologically inspired movement likeBolshevism, textual dualist notions trumping augmented conceptions remained.Consider Trotsky and his desire to achieve Soviet smychka, orcollaboration/union, among the peasants and workers through new technologies.In the early 20's he asked, "What will transform the country into a unitaryeconomic and cultural whole?" Or, read another way, what will eliminateasynchronous reality? His answer? significant spending on the post, telegraph,telephone and other technology that would bridge the great space and time of theSoviet Empire. Trotsky's desire to develop enhanced communications networkshints at a recognition that older methods and older protocols simply could notkeep up with augmented reality on the ground -yet few regimes so fully embodiedtextual dualism like the Bolshevik and later Soviet governments, with the fiveyear plans, Stakhanovism, and 'Dizzy with Success' campaigns that marked theSoviet period.

In conclusion, while I have scratched the surface here on an empirical potentialfor examining implementation of dualist configurations and the augmentedrealities that challenge them, I want to stress that even in an era where digitalnetworks did not exist one can find many examples worthy of deeperexamination when investigating the development of dualist discourses among an


7/7

augmented reality. While the digital dualist conflicts of today are unique in theirapproach, they nonetheless draw upon a storied history that places thedualist/augmented understanding of reality amidst a broader scope of humanexperience.

charting the waves of augmentation

Documents