Confusionism versus Digimodernism – One

Kirby in his digimodernism, or pseudo-meodernism or whatever label he decides on next, approaches technological change as determining what we do or limiting the scope of our decisions, and dominating and redefining art. Digimodernists fall easy prey to negative labelling such as “infantilism”, “endlessness” and labelling our realities as “apparent”. What Kirby himself says about the book Digimodernism in his online introduction is itself revealing in the list of all the things that the book does not address, and surely suggests a “pick and choose” approach to theorising, which is sadly too common in academia, and too often allowed to pass. Digimodernists seem to reduce culture to technological things around us that control us with us having no way to shape that use, or at least no way which can be positive. And finally they seem unable to define the post postmodern period except in terms of their own personal shackling to the modern and postmodern ones.

Confusionists see the technological change of recent times as liberating us as individuals and communities and an enabler turning us all into potentially equal expressers of creativity. Equally technological change is seen as enabling us to communicate across greater distances and outside of traditional controlling paradigms and simplistic determinism with all the positive that can come from this as it reaches full potential of course assuming that institutions of control do not succeed in diverting that potential. Confusionism as an ongoing developing concept will never be totally complete but assumptions will never be made that it is acceptable to leave out any aspect of modern and changing life. As stated in the initial days of the confusionist formation it is a dynamic model and as such cannot be overtly descriptive. For confusionists culture is us and our communities and societies and what is around us is used by us to express ourselves, develop and achieve greater liberation. And finally while recognizing a true historical progression through period, great length has gone to in confusionism to not allow generational differences and mores, which are a feature of modern culture, to interfere in analysis of the post postmodern period.

In short Confusionism takes a liberating and positive approach while Digimodernism takes a determinist negative, critical and almost Weberian nightmare look at a reduction to a lesser culture.

2 thoughts on “Confusionism versus Digimodernism – One

  1. Would you argue that your conception of Confusionism is the flipside, the negative film, the mirror image of Baudrillard’s overly determined Hyperreality?

    • Hyperreality is embedded in over fetishization of the western or developed culture. This is a minority culture on the planet. Most people experiencing the human condition in the world see reality. Western and associated cultures are those infected by the artificial disease of hyperreality that is spread but not totally succesfully by the institutions of power who at the same time ensure the majority on the planet conversely experience reality.
      Confusionism is aimed as a planet wide concept. Hyperreality by dint of being this narrow partial planet concept that ignores the condition of the majority (I am not even sure it really is a concept) cannot be compared. At best it is an analysis of western thought. Surely in an increasingly interconnected world philosophy must be global. That however usually leaves those at the top of the food chain in an uncomfortable and often “unreal” position

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s