LOGO in The Politics of Small Gestures (2006). For Hannula the politics of small
gestures presupposes a network in order to become meaningful and to materialize
in the future. A network is needed in which “the connections are not constantly
active, but nevertheless available and accessible within a common, shared horizon.”
(15) The openness of the network is the basic condition for small gestures becom-
ing development, because the small is never about closure, while the big is usually
the “final stage” (15).
The small gestures can become MORE if they transgress the initial NO. The initial
NO is important and has a key function, and of course there are even categorical
NOs, unacceptable conditions which could hardly be renegotiated, even if they
could be open for dialogue.
Yet, the first reflexive NO cannot be sustained into a continuous anti-position
where emerging alternatives become ruthlessly criticized even before being proto-
typed. New discussions have problems to emerge in an environment ruled by the
big NO. Hannula warns of the consequences of the NO LOGO (Klein 2000) posi-
tion of violent rejection and defiance.
NO LOGO opts for denial; it turns against something, and shuts itself into a structure
and position of opposition. Here [...] it turns its back on its adversary; a strategy that
is not very helpful, and which ultimately, only makes the negative spell that keeps
them as adversaries even stronger. (Hannula 2006: 109)Hannula also acclaims that the position of MORE is only possible after there has
been a NO, but after the initial NO, there is a need to reengage, not manifest posi-
tions or build walls.
If NO means protest, MORE means that just being against something is not enough.
It is the first tentative step towards articulating what you are FOR and why. (Hannula
2006: 109)This is where the individual action or the shared hack can turn into a small gesture
towards social change. MORE is about offering more alternatives, rather than just
saying NO or just letting go. MORE is the initial step towards building a multiplic-
ity of affirmative action spaces. Where NO drops out of the big machine, MORE
plugs into a network of other small gestures and actions, shared by a multiplicity of
participants. These are the workings of the hacktivist abstract machine.
The hacking practice is in this sense the act of doing, of collaboratively building up
the change from below and not only pointing at the direction, but taking the fist
steps. The gesture becomes hands-on making, going back to the root of the Greek
word poiesis which means “to make”. Perhaps this can be a way of bending Han-
nula’s notion of the politics of small gestures into what the abstract machine of hack-
tivism advocates; the poetics of small politics.
This means re-engaging in economy, in the market, in the full system of fashion,
and of plugging-in MORE alternatives. It is not about staying isolated within the
safe-space of the home studio or art gallery, protecting it as a walled and ”free”
space, as if it was free from commercial or status interests in the first place. Actions
and methods prototyped in the studio or gallery must break out and somehow
experiment with plugging into the fashion system. A MORE practice must try
many routes to reach into the system, such as commodities, magazines and pro-
duction facilities, and through these interfaces build complementary forms of cri-
tique. The participants must somehow come into the match, but not in unques-