The Problem of Academics Covering Activism, in activism, particularly within grassroots movements like #Indymedia, there is a significant disconnect between academic interpretations and the realities on the ground. This gap is not a matter of perspective but represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics and operational mechanisms of activist movements.

The disconnect, academics gravitate towards more visible and vocal members of activist circles, the #fashernistas. These are, often passionate and articulate, but are not the ones making the movement’s wheels turn. The core of activism, the real work, is carried out by those who are too busy to engage with academia because they are immersed in the day-to-day efforts of driving change.

The history of the Indymedia project is a case in point. Indymedia was a pioneering effort in the early 2000s to create an open publishing platform for grassroots journalists. Its story is a rich tapestry of collaboration, innovation, and relentless dedication. However, much of the academic writing on Indymedia misses the mark, focusing instead on surface-level narratives. For a deeper understanding of the Indymedia project’s history from someone who was actively involved, you can read my activism stories.

Academia push analyses that are often removed from the practical realities of activism. The theoretical frameworks and methodologies used serve more to fulfil academic desires for publication and recognition than to provide a faithful representation of activist efforts. This creates a body of work that can be described as “wish-fulfilling #fashernista wank,” offering little insight into the actual functioning of movements.

Consequences of this misrepresentation are significant. Historical records, influenced heavily by academic accounts, paint an inaccurate picture of how movements operated and succeeded. This not only distorts the past but also impacts future activists who look to these records for guidance and inspiration. The narratives crafted by academics sideline the contributions of the true workhorses of the movement, leading to a skewed and broken understanding of what is effective in activism.

To bridge this gap, we need academics to engage more deeply with the core activists, those whose hands are dirty from the work of making change happen. This requires a shift from seeking out the most vocal and visible to those who are often unseen but indispensable. Additionally, activists themselves must recognize the importance of documenting their efforts and experiences, ensuring that future narratives reflect the true spirit and mechanics of their movements. The is a project for this #makeinghistory, we do need more authentic dialogue between academics and activists, to build a more accurate and useful body of knowledge that actually honours and reflects the efforts of those driving change.

Q. I wish the hacker culture connection to anarchism was more thorough and consistent. It looks a lot more like privileged fuckery and pet insurrections. It could be that the academic scene wasn’t representative of the movement as a whole

A. I would largely ignore most existing academic history of anachronism and tech as it is extreme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannerism

In my view, a good place to start a project like this would be to look through the #indymedia email archives for an “original” anarchist workflow. I would not take much notice of the “official” history’s of indymedia as they are full of academic wank. The theoretical analysis of the time is all pushing agenders that ripped the project apart and killed it – these are interesting to see this process, but much less useful as exacting history of what actually happened. The who internal process is saved in open email lists now hosted on archive.org no other anarchist project is this well documented.

Best not to add to the activist “mannerism” in our history, it’s very bad all ready, if we are to have hope for “anarchism” fluffy and spiky playing a role in saving a humane/ecological world.

#indymediaback