Last week I said that I would have completed at least five blog post read a lot more of Bogost and finished my sound piece.

I scored 2/3. Not good enough.

Yes, I did read more of bogost but I have no evidence of this because I did not stick to my goal of 5 blog posts a week. I should be reading Bogost, taking notes and writing a blog post about my notes so that I remember what I learnt or found interesting.

I finished the soundscape and am happy with it. We had a good time making it and I really enjoy editing audio so I hope I get to do more of that.

This week I will blog more!!!

Double-loop learning involves modifying my goals or decisions in the light of my experiences. The first loop uses the goals or decision-making rules, the second loop enables the modification, hence “double-loop”. Double-loop learning recognises that the way a problem is defined and solved can be a source of the problem.

www.systemswiki.org

Between now and next week I will have completed at least five blog posts. Read a lot more of the Bogost reading and finished making the sound piece!

What feedback would I give my own work?

Through the feedback I received I would say I had a good use of humour and sound design. My script was also interesting.

However, the images I used could have told the story better. They were too literal showing simply what I was talking about. It would have been better if I had used my own footage or perhaps used the images in a more creative way.

Like Adrian said – all most everyone knows that when they finish university they will never write another essay again. A BLOG however might be something we will carry on for the rest of our lives. Whether it be for work or personal use or even just to keep family updated on a holiday, a blog is something that we should get in the habit of using.

What might my blog posts be about this semester? anything and everything. Could be a photo of a band I saw on the weekend or a sentence I enjoyed in the reading.

This will definitely be a challenge as I tend to treat this kind of thing too seriously. I mustn’t over think my post and write them as if they are a miniature essay. Instead, I just need to keep them casual and post regularly.

Today made me question the nature of the sociality between things.

Done well:
I did the reading.
I familiarised myself with the studio website.

Do Differently:
I didn’t take notes whilst reading the reading and now I’ve forgotten a lot of it. I need to start taking more notes.

I need to start using the blog properly – Not just to show the teacher that I’ve been doing the work but for myself. To be able to articulate my ideas in the form of a blog is a great way to learn.

Today was the first day of Ecologies of Noticing.

To get to know each other we organised ourselves in a line alphabetically which meant we had to speak to each other to find how who went where. We then did the same thing only this time using the suburb we lived in instead.

I’ll be learning in a very different way. Due the fact we live in a time of plenty, where anyone can gain access to information to help them find out how to do something (like shoot a film), it is important for us to ask the right questions and that is what Adrian is here to help us with.

Looking forward to the sound/ video exercise we will be doing with the Offenburg class.

…We also learnt about how the ‘story’ of climate change is non-linear – which is why it is so hard for us to take action!

This essay will seek to explore the key aspects of ‘financialisation’ encompassing a wide range of perspectives and arguments. It will seek to illustrate the ubiquitous nature of finance-led capitalism, focusing on how it has been culturally communicated and produced through particular assumptions and rationalities that exemplify economic frameworks such as neoliberalism. In order to understand ‘financialisation’ and all it entails, one must first see it not as something inevitable but as a motley array or a contingent coming together of practices, materials, people and knowledge’s. It will also focus on how these have ultimately shifted the dominance of the finance sector and are continuing to shape economic life. We must also understand the social and cultural practices of valuation and the power that economists and economic modelling has in governing our futures. Finally, as ‘financialisation’ can be seen as “wealth growing through investment overshadowing all other economic objectives and strategies” (Greenfield, wk 9), this raises significant concern about the state of the worlds’ economies. Saskia Sassen argues we must “begin to ‘definancialise’ the major economies to a significant degree, so that the world can begin to move towards the creation of a “real” economy that delivers security, stability, and sustainability” (Sassen 2009). As economies around the world are either in or heading for prolonged recession what might be the future for this growth regime we know as ‘Financialisation’?

It is important to know that ‘Financialisation’ is characterised by the accumulation of profits predominantly through financial channels, such as interest, derivatives, swaps, hedge funds and capital gains that ultimately reduce the production of goods/ services to an exchangeable financial instrument (Maudlin 2015). It is a process by which contingent practices and materials are put together to create wealth through intangible, future or present promises. Maudlin states, “Economic activity can be ‘creative’ or ‘distributive’” meaning that on one hand something can be produced/created and on the other is simply the process of “money changing hands” (Maudlin 2015). This distinction between ‘creative’ and ‘distributive’ explains why the financial sector went from being 10% of the corporate sector 40 years ago to now 40% and growing (Woolley, 2008). Practices and institutions of finance such as investment banks, stock markets, superannuation funds, insurance companies, credit rating agencies, accountancy firms are not simply adjuncts to other areas of economic activity but of central importance to this leading sector (Greenfield, wk 9). We can see that financialisation is a growth regime organised around equity and shareholder value. “Shareholder value sets a requirement in financial return which is reflected in rising equity price appreciation” (Aglietta 2000, pg. 155). In financialised economies this shareholder value doctrine differentiates growth from the previous model of productivity and real increases to fuel consumption and company growth, from owning and investing, which “stimulates consumption, not only out of disposable income but also out of capital gains,” (Aglietta 2000, pg. 155). Ultimately, it has been culturally communicated that growth is fuelled by the increase in wealth through capital markets or investment and presented as effortless wealth that we would be stupid not to be involved in.

This relates to what Mitchell says about economies and the market being “produced not by the natural workings of self-interest but by the complex organization of desire, agency, price, ownership, and dispossession” (Mitchell 2007, pg.95). He sees economies as socially constructed and politically arguable, contesting how the relations between aggregate numbers of ‘economic men’ bring new social realities and arrangements into being. Similarly, de Goede highlights the cultural aspects of economies particularly the social and cultural practices of valuation. She allows us to see value not as inherent by money forms but as something that is always socially attributed, “money, capital, and finance are not unmediated economic realities” (de Goede 2005, pg. xv). The maintenance of monetary authority is very carefully constructed, which is why the introduction of new forms of currency such as Bitcoin create such controversy. “Money practices, even modern deregulated financial practices, require in-depth social relationships, trust, interpretative communities, and authoritative underpinnings” (de Goede 2005, pg. xxiv). What we value and how we value changes depending on the cultural assumptions and communicative devices that perform and bring that value into begin. Economists and economic modelling also play a roll in the formative aspects of communication. Economists can be seen as wielding the knowledge and power to facilitate our actions in the present so as to achieve their calculated future. With the increasing financialisation of society, mathematical models that economists produce occasionally act as a substitute for genuine political debate. These models position economists as key authoritative and political actors, allowing them to govern and change the experience of the future with the economic charts and information they provide. This relates to what thrift says about the ‘new’ economy involving “strong non-inflationary growth arising out of the increasing influence of information and communications technology and the associated restructuring of economic activity” (Thrift 2001, pg. 414).

Governments cover a significant area of contemporary economic activity particularly after having adopted an economic framework that reduces its roll to enabling ‘free markets’ to grow and function. Since the 1970s we have seen the development of a neo-liberal approach to governing. Policies of privatisation and deregulation, marketization and corporatisation have become more and more frequent. It is common to interpret this shift as evolutionary with the naturalist metaphors used by particular actors to persuade audiences. However, in reality it has been a result of the political assembling of a finance-led capitalism. Financial capitalism is a species of market-orientated capitalism whereby market logic is the organising principle for almost all of the institutional forms. There is seen to be “significant decentralisation of wage bargaining, individualisation of pay and segmentation of [the] labour market” (Boyer 2005, pg. 22). It is important to understand that neoliberal economics was a development of neoclassical economics that began in the 1870s. Neo-classical economics is a departure from the Classical Marxist Political economy that was popular in the late 19th century. Marx was very approving of capitalism however he identified the capitalists trap which, according to Karl Marx, if the rate of exploitation was high and increasing, that was going to be a threat to the capitalist system (Greenfield wk. 7). He advocated for a particular social class where by the workers are the most vital component to the economy. The ratio of net profits to wages in an economy equals the rate of exploitation that then balances the relations between capitalists and workers. Neo-classical economics moves away from social class to the individual level where “individual choices operating through market mechanisms allocate resources most efficiently” (Stretton 2000, pg. 221). Neoliberalism is also a rejection of Keynesian demand-management techniques that “challenge the notion that free market economies can function without a minder” in which case is the roll of active government intervention (Krugman 2009). In working out the productive contributions of each factor of production (labour, capital, land) the Neo-Classical economic model claims that supply and demand determines the price of exchanges, for instance, “the supply and demand for land, interacting with the supply and demand for its products, determine the quantity and price of the land the farmer uses. The farmer gets the best return for his capital and enterprise. The land finds its most productive use. And the landlord gets what the land itself actually contributes to the value of the crop” (Stretton 2000 pg. 219).

The idea of the ‘rational economic man’ is often used as a rhetorical device compelling us to believe we are isolated individuals preventing us from seeing that we are all affected by one another. Someone’s flat screen TV and sports car could potentially be new computers in public schools. However, users of this model defend it arguing, “their economic science is value-free [and] claim that the model merely explains how the economy works in an objective factual way” (Stretton 2000 pg. 221). In Malcolm Turnbull’s recent praise of the Trans-pacific Partnership deal on 3AW he uses the language of the free market putting into ‘play’ particular economic assumptions that the market is an efficient mechanism for the allocation of scarce resources. Turnbull welcomed the 12-country trade deal sealed on Tuesday as “a gigantic foundation stone” for the economy that will deliver jobs and growth. He claims, “in and age of a rapidly globalising economy where services are more important than ever, where access to markets are more important than ever” the deal will be of ‘enormous benefit’ to Australians (Sydney Morning Herald). This coincides with neo-liberalism and a neo-classical economic framework where by the governing concept is that growth is good. As Hay states, “Neoliberal reform is a condition of sustained economic growth and competitiveness in an economically interdependent world in which market participants can be assumed to form their expectations in a rational manner” (Hay 2004, pg. 504). Free trade in goods and services, free circulation of capital and freedom of investment are three fundamental points neoliberals such as Malcolm Turnbull strive for. By using the rhetoric of competition claiming that it will bring about “more innovation and hence services will become better”, Turnbull allows us to see how governing works through communicative devices that formatively persuade populations to conduct themselves accordingly. This also shows us how the financialised economy is formed. Through particular actors such as Malcom Turnbull exemplifying economic frameworks that which produce what we then can recognize and call ‘finance-led capitalism’.

It can be seen that the institutionalisation of this governing neoliberal economic paradigm has perhaps contributed to the dismantling of our democracy and the increase of wealth inequality. Competing projects about how to govern economic activity have raised questions as to the need to definancialise the major economies. Yanis Varoufakis delivered a TED Global talk in Geneva on ‘the future of democracy and capitalism’ describing “a world that is simultaneously libertarian (focusing on empowered individuals), Marxist (having confined the wage-profit distinction to the dustbin of history) and Keynesian, globally Keynesian.” He seeks to remove what he calls the ‘twin peaks paradox’ that is threatening our global economies. One peak is the mountain of debt that ‘casts its long shadow’ around the world, the other a mountain of idle cash belonging to corporations and rich savers that are too terrified to invest their savings in productive activities that can generate the incomes necessary to extinguish the mountain of debt and also produce things humanity needs desperately, such as green energy. As these twin peaks refuse to cancel each other out through the normal operations of the markets, Yanis highlights that if we do not address this “our economic future will be bleak, our societies nasty, and our technological innovations wasted” (Varoufakis 2016). Paul Woolley similarly addresses what he calls “capital market dysfunction”. Supposedly, the finance sector’s role is as an intermediary to efficiently allocate resources (capital) in the economy, but in reality, Woolly argues that it commands a disproportionately high share of capital, brains and profits (Woolly 2008). Sassen also believes that financialisation has gone too far, “financialised capitalism has reach the limits of its own logic” (Sassen 2009). She stresses that if we do not begin to definancialise our economies, the complex instruments of “primitive accumulation” will extract value from all economic sectors, “with taxpayers money as the last frontier” (Sassen 2009). So perhaps with the prolonged economic recessions we are seeing and the ‘dysfuntionality’ of the finance sector, it is time to bring finance to ‘the people’. We are in need of an enormous transformation with deregulated capital failing to sustain the planet. Hind proposes a solution, “employee ownership and control, with oversight of management being seen as normal part of working life, will make a reformed global financial system more durable, by giving knowledge and economic power
to those with an interest in defending it” (Hind 2009). Through the many aspects of financialisation discussed, we can see it as a project that has been actively pursued and as a result, significantly shapes economic and social life.

Colin Hay (2004), ‘The Normalizing Role of Rationalist Assumptions in the Institutional Embedding of Neo-liberalism’, Economy & Society, 33(4), pp. 501-527, excerpts.

Dan Hind (2009), ‘Jump! You Fuckers!’, available online,

Dr Paul Woolley (2008), ‘Global finance: big, bloated and dangerous?’ Big Ideas, ABC Radio National. Transcript of, 3 February 2008. Available online,

Hugh Stretton (2000), ‘A Neo-Classical Model’ in Stretton, Economics: A New Introduction, Sydney, UNSW Press, pp. 217-222.

John Mauldin (2015) ‘The Financialization of the Economy’, Financial Sense, 29 October.

Marieke de Goede (2005), ‘Introduction: Money and Representation’ in Virtue, Fortune, and Faith: A Genealogy of Finance, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp. xiii—xxvii (excerpt).

Mark Kenny (2015), ‘Malcolm Turnbull welcomes TPP as ‘gigantic foundation stone’ for economy’, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 October

Michel Aglietta (2000), Shareholder value and corporate governance: Some tricky questions. Economy and Society, 29(1), 146-159.

Nigel Thrift (2001), ‘”It’s the Romance, Not the Finance, that makes the Business Worth Pursuing”: Disclosing a New Market Culture’, Economy & Society 30 (4), pp. 412-432 excerpts.

Paul Krugman (2009), ‘Rethinking Economics’, Australian Financial Review, 11 September, pp. 2, 10—11.

Robert Boyer (2005), How and Why Capitalisms Differ, MPIfG Discussion Paper, No. 05/4. Economy & Society, 34.4), p.535

Saskia Sassen (2009), ‘Too Big to Save: the End of Financial Capitalism’, Open Democracy , April 1, available online, URL:http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/too-big-to-save-the-end-of-financial-capitalism-0 ,

Timothy Mitchell (2007), ‘Economy’ in B. Burgett & G. Hendler eds, Keywords for American Cultural Studies, NY, New York University Press, pp.92-95.

Yanis Varoufakis (2016) ‘Capitalism will eat democracy — unless we speak up’ TEDTalks Geneva, Video, Available online,

How, where and why might democracy be promoted? Does it need to be?

In order to answer these questions one must first accurately establish what democracy is. As opposed to theocracy, monarchy and oligarchs, Democracy can most commonly be understood as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. However, Schudson argues that there are often limitations to this romantic, populist view of democracy in which the figure of ‘the people’ is central and taken as the natural basis for government. He states “conversation that serves democracy is distinguished not by egalitarianism but by norm-governedness and public-ness” (Schudson 1997, pg. 297). This means that democratic talk is among people of different values and backgrounds, thus our heterogeneous society can often lead to ‘potentially explosive conversation’ (Schudson 1997, pg. 306). There are multiple different levels and scales of democratic organization for example, some people will define democracy as something within the governmental/private domain only, where as others want democratic arrangements to be spread well beyond this domain. For instance, McLennan argues “democratic involvement thus comes to pertain not only to parties and parliaments, but also to schools, health-care trusts, and enterprises” (2005, pg. 75). There is also a question of democracy’s minimum criteria, such as regular elections, universal adult suffrage, the rule of law, human rights etc. Democracy can also vary in terms of the mechanisms; institutions and political objectives, for instance the mechanisms of democracy involve both ‘representative’ and ‘direct’ democracy. Furthermore, parliamentary democracy and republican democracy are part of the institutions and forms of representation that are built from socially organised arrangements. Democracy can also be seen in a variety of styles such as liberal democracy, which has a particular focus on the rights of the individual and social democracy that focuses more on the collective social well being of citizens. It is important to recognise that the institutional, practical account of democracy and the romantic, doctrinal account are vastly different ways of understanding democracy. These perspectives are highly political, Hay argues that “once we have cleared away the myths of rule by the people” we see democracy as a set of mechanisms which subjects “large-scale continuing government” of populations to beneficial constraint (Hirst 1990, pg. 28). This relates to the question of ‘where’ might democracy be promoted?

Keane argues that we are moving away from “the old world of representative democracy” into what he promotes as ‘monitory’ democracy (Keane 2009, pg. 79). In our media saturated society we are seeing a rapid growth of “extra-parliamentary, power scrutinising mechanisms” which are enabling participation in democracy through ‘communicative abundance’. No longer is democracy a way of handing the power of elected governments, it is something that when avoiding technological determinism, can go far beyond the boundaries of territorial states. McLennan believes that our understanding of ‘the sphere of government’ has been extended beyond the level of parliament to a sub-national level and even further to voluntary associations, cultural bodies and even as far as personal relationships and family life (McLennan 2005, pg. 74-75). Sally Young’s article, ‘Unions need makeover to suit modern times’ is an example of where democracy might be promoted. She says, “unions will have to fix their internal governance, democratise and modernise their processes” so that they can “reconfigure a more productive relationship that better serves the Australian community” (Sydney Morning Herald 2015). Keane is not championing the Internet at the expense of representative democracy, elections etc. but instead augmenting and decentring them as “democracy is coming to mean more than elections, though nothing less” (Keane 2009, pg. 80). This raises the question of ‘how’ might democracy be promoted?

Increasing participation is one way of how democracy might be promoted. Dahlgren says, “people increasingly do not feel inspired by what the politicians propose that society collectively could and should be” (Dahlgren 2009, pg. 12). With the growing lack of political engagement George Williams’ article ‘Lowering the voting age to 16 would be good for democracy’ provides us with a possible solution suggesting that, “[16] is a better age for gaining the knowledge and forming the habits needed to be an engaged Australian citizen” (The Age 2015). This relates to Hays debate between Civic Republicanism versus Reason of State. On one hand there is the framework of preserving the republic and on the other is “the stabilizing, insulating and crystallizing [of] the political power of a person or group”, both of which are cultural conditions that allow and assist participation (Hay 2007, pg. 8). Not everyone is pro-democracy, we are often in a sense encouraged to ‘hate’ politics. The success of neoliberalism as a definite political project rests on the persuasive relaying assumption that politicians, being rational actors, shouldn’t intervene with decisions about who gets what, but instead leave it in the neutral hands of the market. “Rationality at the level of the individual unit translates into collective irrationality” (Hay 2007, pg. 2). There is an intention to reduce what Schudson calls ‘publicness’ so that there is less debate and less policy of change, ultimately limiting democracy. Market populism, as Dahlgren puts it, is “the view that markets are actually better equipped than states to allocate resources in society” (Dahlgren 2009, p22). The key aspect of this populist perspective is that it sees only a limited part of the larger political agenda; separating society into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, whether they’re ‘the elite’ vs ‘the people’ or ‘Reclaim Australia’ vs ‘Muslims’ this view obscures multiple real social divisions and differences (Mudde 2015). Hay argues that anti-politics is detrimental to democracy because change comes from politicising, so in order to enhance and promote democracy, participation plays and integral part.

The difference between a democratic polity and a democratic society plays an important roll in why democracy need be promoted. A democratic polity implements political culture and systems of rule that can only assure electoral democracy. Institutions such as political parties and universities involve political norms such as turn taking and attentive listening, all of which shape the kinds of conversations people have in a democratic polity (McLennan 2005, pg. 72). A democratic society on the other hand is a more methodical democracy where there are far more democratic arrangements. A democratic society does not dismiss the importance of elections but instead suggests “finding new ways of democratic living for little people in big and complex societies” (Keane 2009, pg. 81). The fact that democracy is continually ‘unfinished business’ answers why there is a need for democracy to be promoted. There is a common delusion that there is more ‘direct’ democracy due to the Internet. Although it promotes ‘monitory’ democracy we must not assume the Internet guarantees democracy, but instead it is the ‘publicness’ that does. Democracy must be seen not as a fixed form, but self-governing arrangements that can and will continue to take many forms.

Growing up in a world of ‘overlapping and interlinked media’, the emergence of this communicative abundance has assisted in pulling issues such as same sex relations from the initial private sphere into the public and now recently to the governmental sphere. I strongly agree with Hays observation that when issues are politicised they can change political arrangements and mechanisms of democracy (Hay 2007, pg. 79). Keane says, “no hidden topic is protected unconditionally from media coverage, and from possible politicisation; the more ‘private’ it is, the more ‘publicity’ it seems to get” (Keane 2009, pg. 95). Personally, I see climate change as an import issue that needs public deliberation, however Schudson argues that public-ness entails dealing with social differences. Communicative abundance has no automatic democratic effects; it is difficult to challenge the established power of political systems and authoritarian power that does not take climate change seriously because the mechanisms of democracy need to be extended further. “Communication is constitutive but not determinative” (Greenfield 2015, wk. 7). The reason I believe democracy needs to exist in-between elections is because big issues such as global warming have erupted “not by political parties, elections, legislatures and governments, but principally by power-monitoring networks” (Keane 2009, pg. 91). The growing atmosphere of “anti-politics” especially among people my own age is what I believe a consequence of the political systems in place being unable to meet social expectations. I agree with the point that Dahlgren makes that economic insecurity; low wages and declining social services “are all part of a picture that is disconcerting for the vitality of democracy” (Dahlgren 2009, pg. 26). I also agree with Dahlgren labelling capitalism and democracy as ‘an odd couple’, capitalism routinely produces inequality and equality in my eyes is the most important democratic ideal.

In recent years, there have been numerous examples of populism as a rhetorical, political form used as a way of building and mobilising a constituency. In Europe, far-right parties are scoring significant results in systems of proportional representation. The nationalist far-right group UKIP, lead by Nigel Farage, is a great concern in that the majority deliberately tyrannise and exploit diverse small ethnic groups by acting through democratic process. There are many varieties of populism, the recent election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader in the UK has seen Corbyn as “a seasoned advocate of populist verities delivered to the faithful and the seekers with moralistic self-righteousness” (Hayes 2015). Decision making by ‘the people’ does not necessarily mean the result is good. Democracy will continually provide constraints on the inescapable fact we are governed; we will always be a feature of modern nation states. I believe this stresses the importance that politicians should act in the public interest or as Tim Minchin desires, “Australia to have evidence based policy and inspirational rhetoric” (ABC RN, Late night Live, 2015). He argues that decisions should be based on the best possible scientific evidence and our rhetoric should always appeal to the better nature of our population, as opposed to instilling fear. This relates to Waleed Aly’s article on the ‘pub test’ where he speaks of “a politics of the gut” where politicians are unconcerned with details or abstract principles ultimately creating politics of quick opinion (The Age 2015). I agree with Waleed’s argument, I think the idea of ‘the people’ as a unified ‘sovereign people’ just doesn’t exist and at the same time we must be skeptical about what anti-elitists claims are truthfully implying. It is know that “anti-elitist discourse is most commonly used by members of elites themselves in order to promote or to consolidate their own positions” (Hindess & Sawer 2004, pg 4). Consequently, the romantic view of democracy where ‘the people’ are given a voice is insufficient for coming to terms with the actual empirical circumstances of people and the relations of power within which they find themselves. Keane’s states, “democracy is not just the best weapon ever invented for dealing with human arrogance, folly and hubris, but that it also has a deep sensitivity to the facts of uncertainty, complexity and diversity, and that it therefore has a compelling close affinity with the political problem of identifying, handling and resolving so-called ‘wicked problems’”(Kean 2010, pg. 13-14). This highlights the need for democracy to be promoted “Given that unchecked power still weighs down hard on the heads of citizens”(Keane 2009, pg. 96). It is vital that we do away with populist perspectives on democracy and focus on one that which is helpful in guiding the practical arrangements enabling both individuals and groups to participate in decision-making activities that concern them.

Barry Hindess and Marian Sawer (2004), ‘Introduction’, in M. Sawer & B. Hindess (eds) Us and Them: Anti-Elitism in Australia, Perth, API Network, pp. 1-7, 241.

Cas Mudde (2015), ‘Populism in Europe: a primer’ Open Democracy, 12 May, 20th September

Colin Hay (2007), ‘Political disenchantment’, in Why We Hate Politics, Cambridge, Polity, pp. 1-2, 5-10, notes 163, excerpts.

David Hayes (2015) ‘After the Corbyn cult’, Inside Story, 14 September, viewed 19th September

George Williams (2015), ‘Lowering the voting age to 16 would be good for democracy’ Age, 31 May, viewed 19th September < http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lowering-the-voting-age-to-16-would-be-good-for-democracy-20150531-ghdcyq.html>

Gregor McLennan (2005) ‘Democracy’, in T.Bennett L. Grossberg &M. Morris (eds) New Keywords: A Keywords: A Revised Vocabulary of Culture and Society, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 72-76

John Keane (nd, 2010?), ‘Anti Democracy Promotion’ from ‘Democracy in the 21st Century – Global Questions’, pp.10-18 (incl. notes), read pp. 10-14. http://johnkeane.net/48/topics-of-interest/democracy-21st-century/democracy-in-the-21st-century-global-questions

John Keane (2009), ‘Monitory Democracy and Media-saturated Societies’, Griffith Review 24: pp. 1-23.

Michael Schudson (1997), ‘Why Conversation is not the Soul of Democracy’, in Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14, pp. 297-309, excerpts.

Paul Q Hirst (1990), Representative democracy and its limits, Cambridge, Polity, pp. 22-5, 27-8, excerpt.

Peter Dahlgren (2009), ‘Democracy in difficult times’, in Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 12-26.

Phillip Adams (2015) ‘Tim Minchin – Late Night Live’ ABC Radio National, 19 August,

Sally Young (2015), ‘Unions need makeover to suit modern times’ Sydney Morning Herald, 8 July, viewed 18th September,

Waleed Aly (2015) ‘Dyson Heydon: the pub test is a tool in the politics of cynicism’, Age, 4 September, viewed 17th September

I pitched the idea of doing a piece on living off grid to my group after having spent a lot time the past few years Wwoofing on off grid farms. The driving force behind this piece was to explore how these ‘grids’ symbol the web upon which society is entangled and how certain people for many different reasons have cut off these lines and began to live ‘off-the-grid’

We discovered a vast array of different people that had some kind of connection to the story we wanted to tell. After many emails we ended up with a three people whom I believe give us a good perspective on what it means to be “off the Grid” and the challenging and interesting aspects around that. The first interview with Jeff gave us a really good technical perspective and allowed us to see the practicalities of “cutting the cord” and being independent of the main electricity supply. As he is located in Brisbane the only possible interview was via phone, this didn’t give us the best quality sound and made it difficult to listen to for long period so when editing it was important to explore ways of using music to lift a sometimes monotonous voice tone. This was done by fading music in and out making the listener pay attention, using it as a kind of full stop, dividing the narrative into chapters. We were put in contact with Nick, a tour guide from Ceres Community Environment Park Eco House which has an open house on Saturdays so I went down to have a look and speak to him about this example of an off grid home. Ceres represents the major topic we were aiming to focus on; environmentally sustainable living. Nick provided us with the foundations of our interview audio and touched on a variety of interest elements to an off grid property.

Lastly we got onto to Ross Harding from Finding Infinity who showed us new and inventive ways that we can reduce our carbon emissions beyond the home in particular Off Grid Music Festival that he runs. This helps to add a different view on the often misunderstood lifestyle of being ‘off grid’, its not all campfires and mud bricks. It can be community orientated and creative. Ross also gives us a political perspective and talks about the urgent need for action and how we as a nation need to shift our mentality towards one that coexists with nature and does not deplete the Earth’s resources.

Overall, I felt the strongest aspect of this piece was the conceptualisation of a rich and nuanced pallet of sounds that hopefully changed the listener in some way, whether it be a new thought or an altered perception. Living off grid can often be seen as far fetched and too difficult so I hope this gave the listeners some practical advice and motivation. It was our intention to structure the piece as a non-linear narrative, to arrange the dialogue in a way that is all encompassing, much like product of sound. It’s everywhere and unsystematic with chunks of interesting interview placed correctly so as to keep the listener engaged. It’s immersive, textural content and intellectual subjects make it appeal to the RWAV/3RRR audience.

With more time I’d have liked to add some vox-pops and alternative perspectives such as one that is against separation from the electrical grid. I am however satisfied with what we produced in the limited time frame and look forward to making more radio.