that function in a true biomechanic way (Zielinski 2006: 252). The whole modern
project praised the efficiency of an engineering perspective in design, science, or
politics. In a paradigm of “form follows function” every design was created as a cog
in an optimized production line, which left no room for ambiguity or diversity.
&
As a consequence of this, it does not require much extraction of Serres’ idea of
machinic ages to see that today we are experiencing the rise of the network, or
computer diagram. Following Manuel Castells massive work on The Information
Age (1996), in which he analyses the logics of our ”Network Society”, or the recent
blurring between programming software, biological parts and DNA molecules
(BioBricks), we can see the computer diagram take shape on several fronts in the
networked economy, as in Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000), or a shift in the mind-
set within social protest movements (von Busch and Palmås 2006).
This leads us to a situation where the abstract machine of hacktivism emerges to-
gether with a diagram of a ”network society”. It is not replacing clockwork or mo-
tor diagrams, but runs parallel besides them, racing the pace and adding more
layers of complexity to their workings. This new machine also changes some parts
in regard to the mindset of resistance. Where the motor age triggered subversive
forms of stopping the machine, throwing the sabot into the motor in an act of
sabotage, or ”dropping out” by being a slacker, the computer diagram brings about
another form of constructive resistance. Thus we should not look for resistance in
the form of subversion in the examples presented throughout this thesis, but rath-
er how they construct and interconnect with other forces that flow through their
systems, society or nature. Here the hacker is the hero who demystifies codes, out-
smarts systems, empowers users, shares programs, and builds collectively by way of
the participation of a multitude of actors.
Following the identification of an abstract machine behind hacktivism it would be
a mistake to read this machine’s mode of becoming as the core practice or essence
of all the projects we will meet throughout this thesis. Instead, as this thesis is in a
rhizome form, this abstract machine is but one line through the research and all
the other lines we will meet will somehow run parallel to it or cross it. This whole
rhizome is packed with escape routs, swarming with lines of flight.
However, an abstract machine of hacktivism is also directly connected to the prac-
tice of design, of creating the new and offering people new modes and means of
engagement with the world around them. The machine runs through several prac-
tices and acts, assembles and actualizes new action spaces, new worlds for us to
inhabit and interact with. To better see this we should have a look at what action
spaces are.
action spaces
Throughout this work we will encounter many examples of practice and the centre
of attention is on doing and engaging with processes of becoming. A practice or a
process takes place within an ”action space”, the very hands-on opportunities of-
fered to us by the combination of skills, tools and materials. Over the last years I
have discussed this term quite often with the Malmö-based interaction designers
Erik Sandelin and Magnus Torstensson and we have come to see it as a zone of
distributed potentiality related to our abilities to interact with the world. The ac-
The steam engine and motor
came to be the image of the world dur-
ing the industrial age. It was, just like
the clockwork before, the dominant
diagram for understanding the new
rational and industrialized world.
This affected the view on the human
body and mind, society, production,
power and resistance.