Use as Mis-use

Taking a step back from analysing themes created by users, I discerned the activity revealing differing processes of how users made sense of the word index and its instructions. Chiefly, I observed conflict between users when discussing how to ‘correctly’ respond to the activity.¹⁶⁵ Although many users fulfilled the task – what is understood as being a ‘good informant’

(Shokeid, 1988, pp.34) – the activity enabled users to respond autonomously when I wasn’t available to facilitate the task individually. This outcome addresses Wright’s Lexicon where

‘from the perspective of users, everywhere, so-called misuse is simply... use’ (Wright, 2013, pp.26). Hence, use manifested across a spectrum of how much or how little people followed

165 This idea has also been theorised in terms of socially engaged practices and cultural democracy by academic Sophie Hope in her PhD thesis (Hope, C.S.a. (2013) Participating in the 'wrong' way? : practice based research into cultural democracy and the commissioning of art to effect social changethesis Thesis (Ph.D.), Birkbeck (University of London).). Differently to Hope’s research which problematises participation in the Habermasian perspective to ‘self-transform’ (Pp.53), this research offers the perspective that collective use might engender – and multiply – opportunities to transform the institutions around us where increased usership ‘neutralises the sacred’ (Wright, S. (2013) Toward a Lexicon of Usership [online] Eindhoven: Van Abbemuseum.

Available at: http://www.arte-util.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Toward-a-Lexicon-of-usership.pdf [Accessed 07/07/2019].(pp.50) and repurposes tools and institutions for new means.

the instructions. Some users manipulated the rules, some challenged them and some simply ignored them. One user stated;

A lot of the words we want to stop using are negative words. You know… like atrocity, mutilation, depression, corruption. They’re all things that conjure up really nasty images.

This user identifies a common way that others misused the activity - to express their moral positioning on phenomena attached to words, instead of the word itself. Though I had facilitated this workshop previously, I had not anticipated for this outcome. This was due to my prior experience where I was able to tightly define the parameters of the workshop. Hence, the ‘dropping-in’ aspect of the workshop allowed for users to take part autonomously.

However, most retained the activity framework and altered it’s constraints to expand words beyond their intended scope to encompass relational developments. In this sense, users took isolated words and applied meaning using their experiential definition of those words as

‘symbolisms’ for a ‘thing’. This ‘first glance’ engagement is theorised by Wittgenstein in terms of what a word might propose;

At first glance the proposition – say it stands printed on paper – does not seem to be a picture of the reality of which it treats. But nor does the musical score appear at first sight to be a picture of a musical piece: nor does our phonetic spelling (letters) seem to be a picture of our spoken language. And yet these symbolisms prove to be pictures – even in the ordinary sense of the word – of what they represent. (Wittgenstein, 1947;

Wittgenstein, 2006, pp.10)

Considering Wittgenstein’s symbolic theorisation of words, I would argue that this explains how users interpreted Shared Language divergently. By describing what happens in the ‘meta-physical’ realm, Wittgenstein emphasizes the everyday use of language which this study supports (Wittgenstein, Hacker and Schulte, 2010, pp.53; Rorty, 2013, pp.4). In this theorisation, users created a picture of an image on first glance, then they then made a moral decision based on their conjured image. This understanding explains why words such as

‘racism’, ‘oppression’ and ‘prejudice’ appear in the list of rejected words.¹⁶⁶ In turn, this led me to question how I might change my approach to support critical engagement with words instead of images.

When users engaged ‘in the wrong way’ I prevented myself from intervening due to the understanding that ‘there is something queer about use; intentions do not exhaust possibilities’ (Ahmed, 2018, no pagination). Through creating the activity, I did not consider that I would create another set of behaviours that might further ostracise Shared Language from its democratic design. This is emphasised by TE’s descriptor as a ‘common space’ (Cutler, 2017, pp.34) designated by its pedagogical aesthetics. Arguably, these aspects of TE could put

‘the public in the potential predicament of not knowing how to answer the questions asked’

(Campolmi, 2017, pp.80). Nevertheless, I unintentionally created an image of a ‘good citizen’

(Biesta, 2011, pp.142) who would engage with TE and the research agenda to call into question my understanding of user/facilitator autonomy.¹⁶⁷

166 In another example, while in conversation with a user who selected the word ‘feminism’ we discussed his choice to ‘retire’

the word, leaving an annotation underneath; ‘hopefully, someday we won’t use this word anymore (same rights and equality)!’

This is reflected in TPG, but from my perspective, it sits within a contested category. This was also reflected by many users who actively opposed the categorization due to the ideological relevance of the term. In this users’ eyes, he indicated that the word points to a larger societal problem, which was deemed as a conceptual problem rather than a semiotic problem.

167Whilst undertaking this research, I completed a course on facilitation run by the University of Liverpool’s Doctoral College Development Programme. The course included two webinars and two workshops that reinforced my knowledge of facilitation and enabled me to plan and facilitate two sessions on action-research with other post graduate researchers. Before this point, I planned and facilitated workshops with groups using knowledge that I had cultivated through close readings of texts on practitioner development (Schön, D.A. (1995) Knowing-in-action: The new scholarship requires a new epistemology. Change:

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 27 (6), pp.27-34.), facilitation (Heron, J. (1999) The complete facilitator's handbook. London:

Kogan Page.) and moderation (Greenbaum, T.L. (2000) Moderating focus groups : a practical guide for group facilitation. CA:

Sage.). In retrospect, undertaking this course earlier in the research would have benefitted the study and my practitioner development. However, through a process of trial and error, I learnt a great deal about facilitation that would have been difficult to learn using textbooks alone. Due to revelations made via experiencing the practicalities of facilitation (e.g. creating a workshop plan, undertaking the workshop and reflecting on the outcomes) I’d argue that facilitation is not only a skill, but an art (Fierro, R.S. (2016) Enhancing facilitation skills: Dancing with dynamic tensions. New Directions for Evaluation, 2016 (149), pp.31-42., pp.31). In my experience when working with institutions of contemporary art comprehension of facilitation is commonly overlooked. Many artists recruited to facilitate participatory work are not given the tools to develop a coherent facilitator practice. Additionally, I’d argue that employing artists without a critical understanding of facilitation may even further alienate users or make them feel instrumentalised (Helguera, P. (2011) Education for Socially Engaged Art: A Materials

In summary, hosting Shared Language at TE was crucial to unpack how publics might engage with agonistic discourse and to challenge users to articulate their decision-making process (Holliman, 2005, pp.2). In the view of agonism it is important to include conversations that counter TL’s homogenous, ‘neutral’ wall panels, as well as those whose opinions might oppose popular, liberal discourse. In Mouffe’s view, this is central to the understanding of agonism, where opportunities to listen and be heard are essential.