Research Conception

Automatisms, as understood by the post-graduate program, are – just like technologies –practices of forming and formation that should be interpreted in terms of their function, though not reduced to a predictable order of events. Automatisms are inescapable and breach the boundaries of all individual, conscious thought. Though they synthesize as a highly effective set of ‘logics,’ their effects are in a sense – by virtue of the sheer multitude of forces at work – more or less a matter of coincidence. Automatisms are furthermore not to be attributed to a single subject's will, but are instead one element among a powerful collection of objects, signs, and subjects. 

The framework thus described, it is possible to examine concrete medial phenomena with a new perspective. The post-graduate program would like to collect dissertations that explore automatisms in the areas of the media, information technology, and culture. These dissertations would be vital in testing the program hypothesis to achieve new insights into recent observations in cultural studies concerning medial and social phenomena; here, cultural theory could contribute established models and concepts; at the same time, however, the goal is to apply problem-solving strategies from technical fields, as well as unite the theoretical terms used in computer science and approaches borrowed from the humanities.

Sections and projects

What all the post-graduate research projects have in common is their orientation on specific, central principles that had been formulated and refined beforehand and can be integrated into projects wherever they might offer insight and be developed further. These principles serve to aid in substantiating the concept of automatisms.

1. Distributed nature: This basic principle indicates that the workings of automatisms become apparent wherever, in the absence of a shared authority, a number of agents act independently of each other. In the media, it appears to be predominantly in usage of media that structures arise and that would be of particular interest in a bottom-up approach. Particularly relevant in the field of technology are distributed systems.

2. The question of the Self: Inevitably coupled with automatisms, a term containing the Greek stem ‘auto,’ is the question of the Self and of the conditions under which the Self comes into being. Traditional references to the subject have been problematized through models in Philosophy that downplay the subject’s importance. The subject has also become controversial in technical fields, such as in artificial intelligence and robotics, and recently through Latour’s theory of technology, actor-network theory, which rejects the conventional differentiation between human and mechanical actants. In the field of technology, there are extensive preliminary works addressing the question as to in what way the constitution of the subject and social-medial processes are mutually dependent. Technologies designed for the self, self-management, and self-portrayal have gained social significance and are being addressed within a sociological and medially educational framework.

3. Accumulation/emergence. The third basic principle is that quantitative processes play a role within automatisms. New structures seem to arise, amongst other things, through processes of cumulation. The foundation for this principle is based on load models from computer science. We believe the humanities could expand upon these, for example by drawing upon paradigms from studies on memory and conventionalization, which emphasize constitutive role of repetition.

The three aforementioned basic principles unite our various branches of research; the post-graduate program has been structured, based on these principles, into sections and projects. The projects operationalize the program’s questions. As such, they are part of a research approach and establish a framework for possible dissertations:

Automatisms
	Section 1: Distributed processes, Exchange, Transaction, Negotiation, Gift
		Distributed and Mobile systems
		Exchange, Market, and Economy
		Cooperation, Exchange, Learning
	Section 2: Self-calibration, Self-adjustment, Self-management
		Technologies of the Self
		Cycles of Reproduction, System Emergence, System Maintenance
		Cycles of System Development, Automatisms and Automatons
	Section 3: Cumulation, Emergence
		Cumulation, Rankings
		Normalization, Convention
		Automatization and De-Automatization in the Arts

 

Section 1: Distributed Processes, Exchange, Transaction, Negotiation, Gift

The first section is based on the thesis that automatisms come primarily into effect where dispersed, decentrally distributed agents operate without a direct dependency on one another. Where there is no strict institutional framework, communication processes establish interchange and exchange, the network that links the agents. This section seeks to examine how, where and when communication forms structures in an “automatized” way.

1.1 Distributed and Mobile Systems

A particular impulse for the Graduate Program are “distributed systems”, with which computer science is increasingly concerned. Two members of the Graduate Program (Meyer auf der Heide and Karl) work especially in this area. From the networks of mobile telephones to so-called ad hoc networks, all the way to consumer goods that “spontaneously” communicate with one another through RFID labels – the developers of distributed systems find themselves faced with special challenges. These systems are interwoven with their utilization process in a completely new way; the structural patterns that emerge, emerge largely unplanned, as automatisms; the developers find themselves in a new position again as observers.

The aim of the project is to newly describe distributed systems in analogy to social systems. Models are to be developed for how the spread of information occurs in informal networks under a generalized concept of information transaction. This includes developing, among others, a generalized costs model and a measure of precision. 

Method: Treatment of social and cultural studies models for the transfer of information between decentralized units, differences between spontaneous and centralized information exchange, theories on rumors, connection between credibility and the probability of transfer; development of a parameterized mathematical weight model.

State of Research: The field of distributed systems is one of the central fields of computer science, so the available research shows many different facets. Classical themes such as the networking and conception and design of cooperating applications (Coulouris 2001) are expanded in an algorithmic, structural and technical perspective. Algorithms for online processing (Borodin 1998), for data management in distributed environments (Di Stefano 2005, Bienkowski / Meyer auf der Heide 2005), or for ad hoc communication (Ilyas 2002), among others, take into consideration the specific requirements of activities distributed in space and time. In terms of structure, the transition from client/server to peer-to-peer based architectures represents a paradigm shift that has led to new types of requirements (Balakrishnan 2003). In analogy to this, technical innovations such as wireless communication expand the area of use of distributed systems: the original human-machine communication is increasingly replaced by a machine-machine communication. A current example of this are sensor networks that cover wide-ranging surveillance tasks (Karl / Willig 2005).

Supervision: Becker, Karl, Meyer auf der Heide, Wehner.

Cross-references to 1.3, 3.1, 3.2.

1.2 Exchange, Market and Economy

An example space that is especially appropriate for the issues addressed by the Graduate Program are market and economy; automatisms and the “spontaneous” emergence of structures are frequently discussed – especially in the public sphere – using the example of the economy: the “invisible hand” of the market has taken the place of the “visible hand” of planning design. This is evident not only in the field studies that work with ethnographic methods, in which, for example, the emergence and “stabilization” of cooperation are investigated (cf. originally Malinowski 1922), but also in numerous lab investigations conducted by economists who work experimentally (cf. Bowles and Gintis 2002 and Fehr and Gächter 2002). Although the results seem to suggest that the “homo oeconomicus” is at best a caricaturing description of human behavior, a closer look reveals that the neo-classical theory assumption central in this context – that individual actors are rational benefit-maximizers, for whom the participation and stimulation compatibility condition must be met in order for them to become active at all – is indeed thoroughly compatible with the notion of spontaneous “(pro-) social” behavior.

In the Graduate Program, a research project can be brought in here, which investigates the similarities between economic exchange and the symbolic interchange of the media (Winkler 2004.01, 2005.21). Secondly, there is an extensive research connection with the theme of the gift (Ecker). This approach is especially interesting, because it reflects on the economy from its boundaries and thus seems suitable for questioning what is model-like about the economy itself. Prof. Frick contributes expertise in economic sciences to the sub-project.

The aim of the project is to reconsider cultural and social studies work on exchange, interchange and gift under the thematic aspect of the Graduate Program. Are there differences between the exchange of goods and symbolic exchange? Are there automatisms that apply in both areas? Is the market a “distributed system”? And is this also the case for the media? Can relationships be established to the technical systems treated in the sub-project 1.1.?

Method: Treatment of cultural theory uses of economic models.

State of Research: On the relevance of economic models within media studies: Innis (1950/97), Mattelart (1994/96); historical intersections between national economy/economic theory and media theory: Spreen (1998), Vogl (2002), Balke (1996, 2004); on the transition between economy and semiotics: Goux (1973/90), Rossi-Landi (1965/83); “negotiating” meaning: Greenblatt (1988), economies of desire: Lyotard (1974/84), Žižek (2001).

On the theory debate about the gift as a special form of the economic, model of an-economy: Mauss (1924), Malinowski (1979), Strathern (1988) in ethnology; Starobinski (1994) in cultural history; Bataille (1949), Derrida (1993), Bourdieu, Godelier (1999) in philosophy and psychoanalysis; Il dono (2001) in art history; Haselstein (2000), Vogl (2002), Blaschke (2004) in literature history.

Supervision: Ecker, Frick, Winkler.

Cross-references: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2.

1.3 Cooperation, Exchange, Learning

The third project looks at automatisms at the level of group processes. Distributed systems play an increasingly important role there, where actors unknown to one another make contact and plan and coordinate shared activities to a certain end. Examples of this range from leisure activities (events) to political activities and spontaneous protest actions, all the way to areas of networked learning and working (Wikipedia, virtual knowledge spaces, knowledge networks; virtual enterprises). In these examples, individual actors previously often unconnected and unknown to one another form collective structures, the limited coherence of which is essentially due to the use of special media: these include mobile telephones, web interfaces, virtual meeting places or agent systems. Media assume the function of monitoring and analysis, among others; it becomes possible to observe a constellation of relationships, which emerge in an automatized way and may remain opaque to the participants.

The aim is to elaborate the structural features of this relatively new type of media mobilization and coordination (spontaneity, dispensing with higher-level planning, relatively loose connection and heterogeneity of the participants, soft ties, Internet as medium of expression and organization) using empirical case studies. The results of these investigations are to be placed in relation to relevant known social and technological predecessors and parallel developments (e.g. individualization, the project form of entrepreneurial activities, thematic orientation, political engagement, collaborative learning, so-called “mobile” and “nomadic” computing); the results are also to be embedded in theory contexts (network theory and others).

Three of the participating researchers work in this area: Keil on cooperative media and virtual knowledge spaces; Meister on new forms of computer-aided learning and working (Meister 2004, 2004a), and Wehner on electronic networks in a political and economic environment (Wehner 2002.2; 2001.21; 2001.22; 2001.23).

Method: Empirical studies on the case study examples using qualitative and quantitative queries of “users”; log file analyses; theory work. “sTeam” provides a software platform that was developed in Paderborn and can be used for the case studies in this field.

State of Research: Rheingold (2002) supplies important empirical starting points with observations of spontaneous networks (“social swarming”), whereas Castells’ (2003) major study on the networked society offers a social theory framework. Equally important are studies that reflect on the conditions of sub-systems; examples of this are Willke’s writing on collective knowledge management in the modern knowledge economy (2002), the works by Andriessen (2003) and Issing/Klimsa (2001) on forms of cooperative and collaborative learning, the analyses by Eigner (2003), Möller (2005) and Weinberger (2002) on new forms of communication on the Internet, the essays in Wellman (1999) and Wellman/Haythornthwaite (2001) on the relevance of the Internet for establishing and maintaining personal networks, political science works such as those by Putnam on the loss of validity of political parties and associations for mobilizing social engagement, and finally prognoses on computer development such as those by Weiser (1999).

Supervision: Keil, Meister, Wehner.

Cross-references: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.3.

Section 2: Self-calibration, Self-adjustment, Self-management

On the one hand, automatisms presuppose a “self”; on the other, the question is to be raised as to how a “self” emerges, how it stabilizes and reproduces itself, and what role automatisms play in this. It is to be observed in society that growing attention is devoted to mechanisms of self-constitution. In the retreat of social ties and the flexibilization of role specifications, self-constitution and self-management are increasingly called for, which those affected increasingly perceive as a burden. Self-constitution appears to be imposed – clearly conflicting with the connotations of a positively perceived autonomy, which is also inherent to the term.

The concept of automatisms can be delimited on the side of technology with theories of the automaton. Here it is the notion of a mechanical self-activation that determines the term.

2.1 Technologies of the Self

It is emphasized within the social sciences that self-constitution always takes place within a reciprocal relationship – in the reciprocal relationship between subject and society, and secondly in the reciprocal relationship between subject/society and technology.

Social processes of technicization and automization always take hold of people themselves. At this level, the concept of “automatisms” serves to describe disparate processes that function automatically, in other words subconsciously, like physical and mental attitudes, and are thus to be described as “technical” in a sense, but which go beyond the bounds of purely technical functional processes.

At the base of this question is the concept of the (technical) automaton. Can a “self” be attributed to technical arrangements? Which degree of autonomy is required for this? And if the self of the subjects develops in the reciprocal relationship to social/technical arrangements – does technology also develop in cyclical processes, in passing through society, everyday life, use and mass culture?

The aim of the project is to investigate how mechanisms of self-constitution take place in the interplay between subject, society/mass culture and technology, and how they have changed historically. Extensive work on these issues has already been conducted, especially by the participating social scientists; publications and expert conferences are available on: questions of identity on the Internet, automaton theories and robotics (Becker), on subject technologies and on the structuring-forming function of media and socio-technical arrangements in mass culture (Bublitz).

Method: social sciences theory work.

State of research: more recent research on subject- and self-constitution moves within the spectrum of poststructuralist subject critique. Relevant works here are primarily the works – on theories of power and subject – by Bourdieu, Butler, Foucault and Derrida (cf. Bourdieu 1979, 1989, 1990; Bourdieu/Wacquant 1996; Butler 1991, 1995, 2001 and 2003; Foucault 1977, 1986, 1987, 1993, 2000; and Derrida 1972/1997, 1974/1996; on transgressing the subject paradigm, cf. also Habermas 1986). The assumption that releasing self-regulative mechanisms is an essential element of modern subjectification additionally takes recourse to analyses of the connection between individualization processes and self-organization in reflexive modernism (Beck 1984; 1996; Beck/Bonß 2001). Here it is a matter of self-technologies in a comprehensive sense: this addresses not only cultural patterns of self-constitution, processes of self-control, and practices of self-discipline, but also forms of – excessive – self-thematization, self-observation and self-management. Current discourses on the self-constitution of late-modern subjects suggest that in technical-media-organized and neoliberal based societies, new forms of self-representation arise, indicating a changed practice of self-constitution (Baumann 1997, 1999, 2000, 2003; Bröckling 2000; Lemke et al. 2000; on the performative production of the subject in – ritualized – forms of public self-representation, also in media contexts, cf. Bublitz 2005, 2006; Butler 2003; Balke/Schwering/Stäheli 2000; Tholen 2001).

Supervision: Becker, Bublitz, Meister, Sutter.

Cross-references to 1.3, 3.2 and 3.3.

2.2 Cycles of Reproduction, System Emergence, System Maintenance

The reflections on self-constitution have already imputed that processes of self-control are carried out in cyclical feedback loops. Cycles of reproduction play a role in biology and the theory of evolution and have been taken over from there into cybernetics; basic ideas such as feedback and control systems are rooted in the experience of technical apparatuses; the self of self-constitution and the auto- of automatisms hold cycles as a reflexive moment.

System theory generalizes the model in the concept of autopoiesis or emergence. System emergence and system maintenance are described here systematically. The foundational concept for this is operative constructivism, which starts from the self-referential formation (self-constitution) and delimiting of systems: systems are not produced, but rather emerge in the ongoing recursive ties to system-internal operations. Within this framework, system theory investigates the media-conditioned formation of recursively connecting communications and the functions of communication media in increasingly complex societies (the success and spread of communication, memory, storage and thematization function).

Within the framework of the Graduate Program, this can only function as a background; in the field of media studies, however, it seems possible to concretely operationalize the question, because comparable cycles have been extensively investigated here, specifically taking the example of oral cultures, whose tradition is based on ritual, on cyclicity and repetition. Seriality plays a major role within media; the concept of “technical reproduction” that is central to media studies and the computer science concept of iterative or recursive functions may hold an important key here. In social sciences media research, the cyclical establishment and reproduction of media formats and attractors (such as news value factors) can be investigated as a process of recursively forming intrinsic value.

The aim of the project is to show how cyclical reproduction processes merge into automatisms.

Method: first the theoretical foundations have to be developed (connections between social differentiation and media evolution, theories of storage and memory, repetition and reproduction, theories of performativity, cyclical models of cybernetics); secondly, media history representations have to be examined to make the question of selected historical time periods more concrete; thirdly, current analyses of forms and functions of the media in society have to be developed and prepared from this perspective.

State of research: on the current status of cybernetics debates: Pias (2003/04), and there especially Pias (2004_2) and Coy (2004), historically: Wiener (1952, 1963) and Vogl (2004); on the concept of reproduction: Bergermann (2002, 2002_2); on the concept of autopoiesis: Luhmann (1984/93 60ff., 1997 65ff.), and Guwang (2000); on social differentiation and media evolution: Luhmann 1997 249ff., Merten (1994); on the system theory of media: Luhmann (1997 190ff.), Sutter (2001), Wehner (2000); on orality and the constitutive role of repetition: Ong (1982/87), Assmann (1988, 1991); seriality in the media: Giesenfeld (1994); Bippus (2000); on performativity there is currently a far-ranging debate going on, for example: Fischer-Lichte (1998, 2001), Krämer (2004), Winkler (2004.23). On forms and functions of the media in modern society: Göbel (2006); Luhmann (1996), Wehner (1997).

Supervision: Adelmann, Eke, Sutter, Winkler.

Cross-references especially to 2.1, 2.3, 3.1, 3.3.

2.3 Cycles of System Development, Automatisms and Automatons

The question of the cycles of reproduction becomes very concrete for the developers of technical systems. Software packages, for instance, are prepared according to an agreed phase plan and then turned over to the users; the software proves itself or not in practice, in use, then the users’ criticism leads to improvements and thus the next cycle of development.

This classical development model presupposes that the developer has a concrete counterpart, who communicates the criticism (usability or lack thereof); especially with distributed systems, however, this is not the case. In addition, it does not always seem certain that the explicit judgment, as it is empirically registered by market research, for instance, appropriately reflects the actual user satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Computer science reacts by seeking new ways of system development, which proceed dialogically, in close accord with the usage process. Research work on this is already available (Keil-Slawik 1992.11, 2000.26).

The aim is to observe concrete development processes under the aspect of their “passage” through the usage process. A second approach could be to develop a development model that combines current and anticipated technical characteristics with possible social trends, thus indicating possible scenarios for expansion or alteration.

Thirdly, the question of automatons and automatisms should be taken up from the perspective described: while the development process itself is planned, “automatism” begins as soon as the technology leaves the labs. In this way, usage can develop “automatisms” of its own, which go beyond every intention set into the technology.

Method: Material here could consist of case studies from the stores of the history of technology, which could possibly be revised in light of the issues addressed by the Graduate Program, as well as categories of more current theory of technology; research work is already available on the “misuse” of remote controls for zapping (Winkler 1991), on the significance of screen text in practical use and text messaging, which were not conceived as a primary media function (vertical blanking interval in television transmission and text messaging as a “by-product” of GSM standards), but instead developed usage dimensions of their own through the exploitation of other features of the respective technology (Ulrich 2003), and on the interweaving of technology and social theory (Becker, Keil-Slawik 2001.27).

State of research: Initial works on these topics are concentrated on system development methods and the political-institutional surroundings of system development (Nygaard/Handlykken 1981, Nygaard 1986), which increasingly influenced design methods and design theories in the Scandinavian region (summarized and expanded in Ehn 1988, Andersen et al. 1990, Dahlbohm/Mathiassen 1993). Partly continuing from these early works, there was a series of strongly empirically based investigations of the practice of programming (Naur 1992) and on the adaptation and development of suitable project models (Floyd 1981). The broad acceptance of prototyping (Floyd 1984) and spiral or v-shaped project models (Boehm 1986) led to broader analyses of aspects related to application, such as the role of errors, the use of languages/specialized languages, and the self-organized development of action patterns (Keil-Slawik 1992.11). Other works deal with the influence of social factors on software quality (Pasch 1994) and, more generally, the practices of software developers (Degele 1997) and questions of the sociology of knowledge (Funken 2001) and the development of open and cooperative technology design processes (Dierkes 2000). Usage aspects are also increasingly foregrounded in relation to the analysis of surroundings. Starting points here are works by American anthropologists on everyday cognition (Rogoff/Lave 1984, Lave 1988), which were later expanded with the concept of situated action with artifacts to identify early patterns of use (Suchman 1987). With the key word “designing for unanticipated use …”, Robinson (1993) introduced four dimensions intended to characterize the development of unconventional usage behavior, and which can ultimately be traced back to the design of artifacts (Prinz/Mark/Pankoke-Babatz 1998, Pekkola 2003). Another approach uses the concept of behavior settings (Barker 1968) to illuminate the interplay of plans of action and context conditions. These kinds of insights are to flow into context modeling to develop awareness components in CSCW systems (Pankoke-Babatz 2003, Pankoke-Babatz/Prinz/Schäfer 2004). A different approach is taken by Bleek (2004), who introduces the concept of the arena for the development and design of infrastructures and propounds an approach of integrating parallel asynchronous development processes. The concept of “extreme programming” is an interesting approach between these lines of development, which can be traced back to Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham (Beck 1999 and 2000). These kinds of development approaches are usually summarized under the term “agile software development”. So far, however, there are more programmatic and empirically based publications on this subject, which do not offer concepts that can be used for the issue of the development of automatisms.

Supervision: Karl, Keil, Becker (a cooperation with Prof. Engles and Prof. Schäfter [software technology] has been agreed).

Cross-references: 1.1, 1.3.

Section 3 – Cumulation, Emergence

Automatisms, as understood by the Graduate Program, have a quantitative aspect, in that phenomena of cumulation play a role; the emergence of structures in distributed systems frequently takes place additively. At the same time, however, this aspect is anything but trivial: quantitative changes can trigger development leaps that statistics cannot account for; phenomena of compression seem to be just as typical as those of sheer accumulation. In addition, it can be observed that the processes of cumulation in turn take place in cycles; feedback, resonance and self-amplification are at work in these cycles.

Various areas of specialization use the concept of emergence to describe phenomena of the formation of structure and the tipping from quantity into quality. The main characteristic of emergent processes is that they engender something unexpected, something new. The Graduate Program will take up the concept as a framework concept, take its conceptualization into account, for example, in system theory and test its usability in an interdisciplinary space (Stephan 1999, Stephan 2001, Alexander 1920, Morgan 1923, Morgan 1926, Sellars 1922, Broad 1925, Fromm 2004, Holland 1998, Luhmann 1996.2, Luhmann 1997, Sutter 2006). At the same time, the concept will be concretized with the specialist questions of the Graduate Program.

3.1. Cumulation, Rankings

To begin with, prior work will be introduced in this section, which stems from the post-graduate project of one of the participating junior scholars. Adelmann investigates ranking as a form of systems of order in popular culture, which meanwhile, starting from the established hit parades and bestseller lists, now determine large portions of the Internet and the media landscape. Book recommendations from Amazon and the CHE ranking of universities, results lists from search engines and personalized advertising based on clustering – what all of these applications have in common is that distributed, empirical processes are observed and statistically collected, in order to feed them back into popular discourse.

The aim of the project is to show how these rankings and cumulative systems of ordering function and what their cultural position is. Since the history of writing, for example, begins with economic lists, the pre-history of these kinds of popular culture systems of ordering is also to be developed. An individual study of the self-organization of Internet users through reference and evaluation activities is also possible. The participating computer scientists plan investigations of the effect of self-amplification and emergent rankings in distributed systems. Analyses of ranking structure and user behavior are to facilitate the recognition of a premature convergence into a homogeneous representation (self-amplification effects from the representation of results), and to limit this if needed. The diversity of results will be further limited in subsequent iterations to take the specific wishes of the user into account.

Method: theory work, historical investigations and case studies.

State of research: Popular systems of order have hardly been addressed as socio-cultural automatisms in the culture studies research landscape. Publications on beststellers (Thomsen/Faulstich 1993, Faulstich 1983, 1986, Hendler 2001, Bloom 2002) and on hits and hit lists (Fairley 1992, Wicke 1996, Haring 2000) supply concrete material. The few theoretical treatments are also frequently limited to a specific field, such as search engines (Ernst/Heidenreich/Holl 2003, Lehmann/Schetsche 2005) or a reception attitude (Groys 2004; Shuker 2004). The computer science landscape is dominated by research work on the generation (Page/Brin 1998, Haveliwala 2002), presentation (Hristidis/Papakonstantinou 2004) and unification (Rasolofo 2002) of rankings. A broader overview of existing technologies is found, for example, in Nohr (2005) and Baeza-Yates/Ribeiro-Neto (1999). Current publications especially take into consideration the coupling of diverse information sources under the key word information fusion (Dasarathy 2003).

Supervision: Adelmann, Bublitz, Karl, Meyer auf der Heide.

Cross-references: 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 3,2.

3.2 Normalization, Convention

An important theoretical reference for the Graduate Program is the concept of normalization, as it has been introduced into the discussion by Jürgen Link. The core of his thesis is that subjects increasingly adjust themselves in observing what is socially “normal” (cf. 2.1). Social norms are superseded by a “flexible normalism”.

Link’s normalism also involves quantities, to the extent that it is accumulations that format the “normal”. The Gauss curve is a statistical function, marking the place where the tip occurs, where quantities/accumulations become structurally relevant. The way that Link rises to an implicit, intuitive orientation conjoins normalism with the question of automatism pursued here.

Extensive research has been conducted in this area by the participating scholars, which is distinguished, among others, by a research project on the cultural crisis of modernism and numerous publications (Bublitz). Prior work is also available from the Adelmann post-graduate project.

Aim: The project is intended to test the thesis in terms of socio-cultural automatisms and develop it on the basis of the context of the Graduate Program. The integration of a general model for the formation of schemata and conventionalization would seem especially beneficial (3.3).

Method: Theory work, concretization using the example of rankings and cultural conventionalizations like genres.

State of research: Research on the modern production of normality and its statistical foundation is based on Canguilhem (1943/1974) and works by Foucault (cf. Foucault 1993, 1999, 2003). The concept of the normalization society (Foucault 1993, 1999; cf. also Sohn Mertens 1999) and Jürgen Link’s (Link 1997, Link/Loer/Neuendorff 2003) normalism concept are followed by a series of media studies concretizations, e.g. on the visualization of statistical data in infographics (Gerhard/Link/Schulte-Holtey 2001) or on the type of narrative “(not) normal trip” (Gerhard et al. 2003).

Supervision: Adelmann, Bublitz, Winkler

Cross-references: 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3.

3.3. Automatization and De-automatization in the Arts

The last section addresses the fact that the outlined automatisms are thoroughly ambivalent within cultural studies and are regarded extremely critically from several approaches. For instance, Russian formalism and Prague structuralism (Viktor Šklovskij, Jan Mukařovský) argued programmatically that the task of art is a de-automatization. If automatized and conventionalized processes are capable of impelling development, inevitable and “economic” on the one hand, they are determined at the same time by a certain blindness; the process of automatization virtually stands for the threshold between conscious and unconscious, and conventions form underlying assumptions that largely elude conscious reflection and shaping. In this case, the thesis of the Graduate Program is taken to an important boundary.

The attention of the Graduate Program is shifted to art (literature, theater, film) as a performative practice in the field of tension between autogenesis (automatisms) and heterogenesis (artefactum), between autopoiesis (epiphany) and poiesis (constructedness). This raises the question of how aesthetic processes are conceptualized, how these conceptualizations find a translation in practices of forming and formation, and which significance automatisms assume within this framework. Concepts of performativity and playing (Schechner, Schramm, Fischer-Lichte; Caillois, Iser, Gebauer/Wulf) provide theoretical frameworks on the side of production aesthetics; on the reception side, in the relationship between art work and viewer (theater/cinema viewer, reader, listener), an interlocking of processes of automatization and de-automatization must also be taken into account.

Automatisms play a special role in the realm of cinema. The filmic dispositive is associated with the investigation of mental, kinetic and cybernetic processes and automatisms (cf. the movement studies by Muybridge and Marey and Charcot’s hypnosis studies: Helmholtz and others have worked on attempts to couple the nervous system and apparatuses). In apparatus studies the apparative arrangement of the machine corresponds to the mental apparatus: automatisms of the apparatus correspond to automatisms in the audience. Formalism, structuralism and semiotics characterize determinist directions in film theory; in constructivism (Bordwell, Thompson) film forms a closed system, to which a “programmable” audience belongs.

Current phenomenological and cognition aesthetics (Sobchack), psychoanalytical and deconstructivist (Bellour, Marks) approaches, on the other hand, formulate positions of the non-determinability of the relationship between the aesthetic product and the viewer. Processes of de-automatization are located in contingencies of modes of perception (spatial arrangements) and expressions of the body: these move in a field of tension and interplay between automatisms, incalculable reactions or affects (Shaviro, Massumi) and memory (Klippel). A third component of unforeseeable processes of de-automatization is localized in film material, its constitution and aesthetics: physical processes such as crying and laughing (Marks, Schlüpmann) have two sides in relation to the materiality of the film and in exchange with the audience (Staiger): they are controllable, yet individually unpredictable. They run automatically, but at the same time, they produce phenomena that elude the apparatus, its intentions and automatisms and forms of coding.

The aim of the project is to investigate the tension between automatisms and de-automization in literature theory, theater theory, film theory and aesthetics and to examine in automatisms the portions that develop “autonomy” and thus resist the formation of structures, contingently and uncontrollably undermining them.

Method: analyses of the respective historical material grounded in theory.

State of research: formalism and structuralism: Šklovskij (1925) and Mukařovský (1967); cultural studies: Grossberg (1992); Greenblatt (1993, 1994, 1995), et al. Film experience and cognition theories: Marks (2000, 2002), Sobchak (1992, 2000, 2004); “visual fascination”: Shaviro (1993) and spatial projection, cinema, space: Schlüpmann (1998, 2002); memory: Klippel; performativity/theater: Schechner (1966, 1973); Schramm (1996); Balme (1999); Fischer-Lichte (2004); play: Callois (1982), Iser (1991), Gebauer/Wolf (1998).

Supervision: Brauerhoch, Bublitz, Ecker, Eke.

Cross-references: 1.1, 1.2, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2.