The last years my continuous concern lies on the presence of the marginalized female voice in public. During my previous studies I gradually realized how my gendered body has been silenced or marginalized since my early childhood through slight gestures from male figures or institutional powers that was obfuscating the situation. Observing/rethinking female members of my family, as well, female teachers, workers and immigrants of my early environment I found out different types of marginalization and silencing. Examples with it women working at home or the background of a company, interrupting them when articulating arguments in a political dialogue, underestimate her knowledge, taking care of everything aside to their own life, gossiping. I had also dealt with several experiences when in public space[more specific examples to voice]. The mediation of their voices and the way they were becoming present/visible, participants and visible in public space were interested me in my recent projects. My past projects reflect and respond to that concern. Sound as a form of art is put aside and its not so strong for a visual society. But artists that work on these topics have appropriated it. Oral history has also concerned feminists and other un-patriarchical structures. Its invisibility had metaphorically connected with them. The sound of voices reveals hidden supressed aspects and subjects of the society. The sound has to do invisibility, telepresence and marginal [text about proposal at Belfast]. In my project *Sound Acts in Victoria Square* I inserted the recorded sounds of women’s voices into existing conversations at a public square in Athens that was male dominated. First, I realized and recorded actions of conversations, within two months, with women in the square, as well as archived and ordered the collected material. Then I planned and realized the in-situ broadcasting of the collected sound material and the direction of the new relations and conversations with the public for one day in June 2015. Their voices came from a past time at the same place, when they were present physically. At another time only their words are present in the place and 'participate' in conversations in the square. From my text describing the project: "The broadcasted female voices were abruptly intervening into the existing conversations in the specific places, giving the impression of an non-invited 'absent' guest" (Diakrousi, 2015, pg. ) or I would say a mediated distant voice. Intersectionality and feminism proposed an interesting approach to work with. Practices of feminists appropriated and embraced the voice as an embodied act...Horizontal dialogue, listening practices, presence, voice... My ongoing research lead me to the public forums and public speeches and the technologies that facilitate them.
This thesis is a series of 5 essays which relate to the female and collective voice and its mediation. They address the voice as a feminist tool for communicating and an object of inhabiting space and presence. The texts deal particularly with the voice as a medium for collective practices (see *The roots of collective voice*). Historically, some voices and modes of addressing have been marginalized and shut out of the public domain (see *the monstrosity of female voice*). The separation between private and public space plays an important role. The collective voice represents the marginalized voice of a patriarchal society. The female voice is part of it. This collective vocalization affords the amplification and multiplication either with the aid of technology or embodied practices (see *Multiplication vis a vis amplification*) that refuses the dominant ways of establishing presence and dialogue. In the patriarchal democracy there is a fear of ugly forms of address which are connected to the female body _ blood, birth, death, mourning &c_ and other dark aspects and passions that are perceived as threat for the society. These are forms of vocalization that are excluded public discourse which centers on “self-control” and “reason”. Such things are creating noise and disorder and "have to be kept" silent according to the patriarchal norms. But alternative mediums and forms of communication have been developed against that (see *transmittingugly things*). There are technologies for self-control and filtration. The men are taught to disport themselves in particular ways and they are taught to teach the women to be silent. In the current era we see how technologies serve to filter forms of collective voices; again this aims to reduce “noise” (see *Let’s talk about unspeakable things*).
The last years my continuous concern lies on the presence of the marginalized female voice in public. During my previous studies I gradually realized how my gendered body has been silenced or marginalized since my early childhood through slight gestures from male figures or institutional powers that was obfuscating the situation. Observing/rethinking female members of my family, as well, female teachers, workers and immigrants of my early environment I found out different types of marginalization and silencing. Examples with it women working at home or the background of a company, interrupting them when articulating arguments in a political dialogue, underestimate her knowledge, taking care of everything aside to their own life, gossiping. I had also dealt with several experiences when in public space[more specific examples to voice]. The mediation of their voices and the way they were becoming present/visible, participants and visible in public space were interested me in my recent projects. My past projects reflect and respond to that concern. Sound as a form of art is put aside and its not so strong for a visual society. But artists that work on these topics have appropriated it. Oral history has also concerned feminists and other un-patriarchical structures. Its invisibility had metaphorically connected with them. The sound of voices reveals hidden supressed aspects and subjects of the society. The sound has to do invisibility, telepresence and marginal [text about proposal at Belfast]. In my project *Sound Acts in Victoria Square* I inserted the recorded sounds of women’s voices into existing conversations at a public square in Athens that was male dominated. First, I realized and recorded actions of conversations, within two months, with women in the square, as well as archived and ordered the collected material. Then I planned and realized the in-situ broadcasting of the collected sound material and the direction of the new relations and conversations with the public for one day in June 2015. Their voices came from a past time at the same place, when they were present physically. At another time only their words are present in the place and 'participate' in conversations in the square. From my text describing the project: "The broadcasted female voices were abruptly intervening into the existing conversations in the specific places, giving the impression of an non-invited 'absent' guest" (Diakrousi, 2015, pg. ) or I would say a mediated distant voice.
Intersectionality and feminism proposed an interesting approach to work with. My ongoing research lead me to the public forums and public speeches and the technologies that facilitate them.
This thesis is a series of 5 essays which relate to the female and collective voice and its mediation. They address the voice as a feminist tool for communicating and an object of inhabiting space and presence. The texts deal particularly with the voice as a medium for collective practices (see *The roots of collective voice*). Historically, some voices and modes of addressing have been marginalized and shut out of the public domain (see *the monstrosity of female voice*); the collective voice represents the marginalized voice and the female voice is part of it. The former affords the amplification and multiplication either with the aid of technology or embodied practices (see *Multiplication vis a vis amplification*) that refuses the dominant ways of establishing presence; in the patriarchal democracy there is a fear of ugly forms of address which are connected to the female body _ blood, birth, death, mourning &c_ and other dark aspects and passions. These are forms of vocalization which are excluded public discourse which centers on “self-control” and “reason”. Such things are creating noise and disorder and "have to be kept" silent according to the patriarchal norms. But alternative mediums and forms of communication have been developed against that (see *transmittingugly things*). There are technologies for self-control and filtration. The men are taught to disport themselves in particular ways and they are taught to teach the women to be silent. In the current era we see how technologies serve to filter forms of collective voices; again this aims to reduce “noise” (see *Let’s talk about unspeakable things*).
Research question:
*This thesis comprisesseries of small 6 essays that will be reconfigured in the thesis : “ the monstrosity…”. All these essays have in common the separation between private and public; gender separation; the individual and collective insofar as they relate to the voice and how the voice is mediated from the past times to today*
@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ As I described in "Monstrosity..." one ugly form of address was an utterance, a
Other ugly things are the private and hidden events of family violence. For feminists in the early 20th century the speech in public, in a group of other women sharing the same problem, was a way to externalize the personal violence and suppression of women without using violence in response. Protesters talk collectively about the bad financial structure of the states either by demonstrating or occupying public spaces. All these examples are not following the rationalist approach of the context they are part of. They express passion, vulnerabilities and unfulfilled desires. The idea that democracy is a civilized way of taking decisions that doesn't accept any form of over-emotion or overflow of expression, is nothing more than an illusion. An illusion that threatens the existence of democracy by creating exclusion and disregarding the importance of passions and desires in politics. As Mouffe (2013) says, "[i]f there is anything that endangers democracy nowadays, it is precisely the rationalist approach, because it is blind to the nature of the political and denies the central role that passions play in the field of politics." Thus democratic processes should take into consideration any irrational fantasies and desires that the public express. The suppression of them may lead to suppressed pain, fanaticism and fascism.
## Streaming media in relation to female continuity
In the ancient medical and anatomical theory women had two mouths, the upper and the lower, connected through a neck. The lips of both of them guarded the “hollow cavity” (Carson, 1996, pg. 131) and they had to remain closed. Having two mouths that speak simultaneously is confusing and embarrassing and this creates ‘kakophony’. Females were expressing something directly when it should have been told indirectly. This direct continuity between the inside and the outside is repelling for the male nature that aspires the self-control which interrupts this continuity and dissociates the inside from the outside (Crason, 1996, pg. 131). They 'transmit' unfiltered information. At this point I would like to draw parallel lines with the streaming media that has been used as a tool of direct and urgent communication for protesters like in the case of the Occupy Movement. Similarly with the continuity I described before streaming protocols/processes are delivering unedited live messages that sometimes don't agree with the mainstream current public opinion. In Occupy Wall Street for example streaming media was a way for the protesters to be heard in public fast and broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus not any expert or official media platform could filter their speech and alter the message before they spread it online. This unaltered and direct speech of (radio/streaming) broadcasting (Ernst, 2016, pg. 104) have similarities with the non controlled direct expression of the female bodies in public (like hysteria and aischrologia, ololyga).
In the ancient medical and anatomical theory women had two mouths, the upper and the lower, connected through a neck. The lips of both of them guarded the “hollow cavity” (Carson, 1996, pg. 131) and they had to remain closed. Having two mouths that speak simultaneously is confusing and embarrassing and this creates ‘kakophony’. Females were expressing something directly when it should have been told indirectly. This direct continuity between the inside and the outside is repelling for the male nature that aspires the self-control which interrupts this continuity and dissociates the inside from the outside (Crason, 1996, pg. 131). They 'transmit' unfiltered information. At this point I would like to draw parallel lines with the streaming media that has been used as a tool of direct and urgent communication for protesters like in the case of the Occupy Movement. Similarly with the continuity I described before streaming protocols/processes are delivering unedited live messages that sometimes don't agree with the mainstream current public opinion. In Occupy Wall Street for example streaming media was a way for the protesters to be heard in public fast and broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus not any expert or official media platform could filter their speech and alter the message before they spread it online. This unaltered and direct speech of (radio/streaming) broadcasting (Ernst, 2016, pg. 104) have similarities with the non controlled direct expression of the female bodies in public (like hysteria and aischrologia, ololyga). Like Livestream or youtube streaming.
With the excuse of the annoying noise that creates disorder, some modes of address [especially the female voice, maybe also collective one? so not need for the essay "Roots..."] have been marginalized and shut out of the public domain or have been normalized/filtered/controlled according to the principles of society.
## What modes: the annoying noise
In Ancient Greece there was a mystification around the high-pitched voice that was connected with the evil. The human nature, as defined by the patriarchy, differs from the other animals' nature on the ability on articulating the sound and creating the ‘logos’ (speech). Through 'logos' humans can develop dialogue and democratic processes of communication and decision making. All the other forms of expression are wild and not rational, including sign language [example?] and the 'hysterical' exposures of women [more detail on describing why the noise is annoying]. Aristotle and his contemporaries believed that the vocal sound is based on the physiognomy, the genitals, of a person and that is why men speak in a low pitch. The high-pitched utterance of women, called 'ololyga', which was a ritual practice dedicated to important events of the life, like the birth of a child or the death of a person, was considered as a 'pollution' to the civic space. They were annoying sounds. If they were expressed in public they would create chaos and craziness. In mythology, when Odysseus awakens in the island of Phaiakia, he is "surrounded by the shrieking of women (...) and goes one to wonder what sort of savages or super-natural beings can be making such a racket". These women were Nausica and her girlfriends that are described by Homer as "wild girls who roam the mountains in attendance upon Artemis" (Carson, 1996, pg. 125). Similarly Alkaios, an archaic poet that had been expelled, was left outside of the city, where public assemblies were taken place, and was disgust by the presence of women’s voices talking 'nonsense'. In the ancient world women were excluded in the margin, the dark and formless space were speech and thus politics were absent. This disorderly loud female noise was related to a non civilized wild space, a political incorrect sound. Today women in public life worry if their voice is too light or high to deserve respect. Thus radio producers and politicians, like Margaret Thatcher, are trained to learn how to speak in public, deepen their voice and being taken seriously as a male speaker would do. A very recent example of how men were annoyed by women's voices is the abhorrence that Ernest Hemingway had for the voice of Gerdrude Stein [his words]. He would judge her for her big physical size and her monstrous voice that could not be tolerated.[Carson talks about his feelings for being in the margin, feelings of alienation]. Carson (1996, pg. 120) observes that the female voice in public is related to madness, witchery, bestiality, disorder, death and chaos. An thus has to stay hidden from sight ["The Oxymoron..." individual vs collective democracy].
context
>HOW FEMALE VOICE SOUNDS LIKE:
high-pitched, loud shouting, having too much smile in it, decapitated hen, heartchilling groan, garg, horrendous, howling dogs, being tortured in hell, deadly, incredible babbling, fearsome hullabaloo, she shrieks obscenities, haunting garrulity, monstrous, prodigious noise level, otherwordly echo, making such a racket, a loud roaring noise, disorderly and uncontrolled outflow of sound, shrieking, wailing, sobbing, shrill lament, loud laughter, screams of pain or of pleasure, eruptions of raw emotion, groan, barbarous excesses, female outpourings, bad sound, craziness, non-rational, weeping, emotional display, oral disorder, disturbing, abnormal, "hysteria", "Not public property", exposing her inside facts, private data, permits direct continuity between inside and outside, female ejaculation, "saying ugly things", objectionable, pollution, remarkable [from Carson's text]
@ -20,6 +20,8 @@ The dominant notion that men are the main operators of public sphere together wi
## Conclusion
The association of the female voice with bestiality and disorder justifies the tactic of patriarchal culture to ‘put a door’ on the female mouth since the ancient times. Different mechanisms have been developed to exclude specific forms of addressing from the public that are based on complicated power relations.
With the excuse of the annoying noise that creates disorder, some modes of address [especially the female voice, maybe also collective one? so not need for the essay "Roots..."] have been marginalized and shut out of the public domain or have been normalized/filtered/controlled according to the principles of society.
# Bibliography?
- ? Fasbinder, F. (2017) Use These 3 Vocal Techniques to Command the Room Like Margaret Thatcher and Obama, Inc.com. Available at: https://www.inc.com/fia-fasbinder/science-shows-people-respond-to-stronger-deeper-voices-how-to-train-your-voice-like-margaret-thatcher-obama.html (Accessed: 4 January 2019).
The mediation of all these marginalized forms of voicing (see "Monstrosity..." {I can put extracts of my essays as annotations}) is happening in conditions that escape the traditional ways of the main public platform, which is male and expert dominated. Practices have been developed in response to that. All of them have in common the localization, the small scale, the refuse of prohibition and specialization, the participation and presence of people and temporariness. In this essay I will present examples of such practices.
## The mediation of voice through multiplication
History of public speech[public sphere, public forums]
The urban space hosts several political activities like squatting, demonstrations, politics of culture and identity that are visible on the street and non dependent on massive media technologies. Such an example is the Speaker's Corner, "the home of free speech, where anyone can get on their soapbox and make their voice heard" (Coomes, 2015). Anyone becomes a speaker in a public street or square and can be heard by passengers by. This was a very crucial element in the Occupy Movement <sup>[1](#myfootnote1)</sup>; part of the occupy events would be public speeches often by philosophers, writers, academics, resistant figures(?) on the spot of the occupied space. The audience would may be very big and thus an amplifier was needed for the voice of the speaker to be heard to everyone. However, in the case of the Occupy Wall Street, amplified sound devices, like microphone and megaphone, were only allowed outside in the public spaces when a special permission from the municipality was given <sup>[1](#myfootnote2)</sup>. But "when the technologies above them are removed somehow, the foundational elements remain embedded and embodied in our cyborg bodies and brains" (Pages, 2011). The participants of #occupy became the 'human microphone', as they call it. This means that all together would repeat the words of the speaker for the benefit of those located in the rear. "Even given that many of the participants of #occupy are in full possession of smartphones, verbal address to the crowd from a singular source is still important" (Pages, 2011). This is an interesting fact of the public outside physical space of today. Even though many new technologies of networking, amplification and communication emerge, the public space seems to exist in a more 'primitive' and embodied expression for the ones that lack platforms of representation. Saskia Sassen (2012, p.) observes that in the cities today a big mix of people coexist. The ones who lack power can make themselves present through face to face communication. According to her this condition reveals another type of politics and political actors, based on hybrid contexts of acting and outside of the formal system. Kanaveli (2012) says that something that is visible and can be heard is reality and can create and give power. Site specificity is also very characteristic here. <br>
From my point of view, the Occupy Movement revealed a lot about the relation of the media technology with the presence and resistance, emerged as an amplified process, in public. What I find interesting is that those people because of their multilayered relation to technology, like social media, are able to spread the words and make them viral in Internet. As it can be seen from the Youtube videos of the #occupy the crowd is using a lot of different media technologies, like their smartphones, to record or stream the words of the public speakers in Livestream platforms. This process was also a way to archive and make public bottom-up initiatives in public spaces in diverse networks. At the same time there is a temporariness in this action as platforms in internet are constantly changing or disappearing. So, the events and speeches are appearing in fragments of videos, transcriptions, conversations in forums. It is more like the users, protesters are leaving as many traces online as possible, as fragments of resistance. The multilayered communication of the events is like an urgent and fast multiplication of them in different forms and spaces [more]. The use of all these media doesn't require any special skill and the presence of an expert is not required. So mainstream media journalists are not needed for the news to spread to a wider public. This also means that the message is not edited or altered by a big company. "With cellphones, iPads and video cameras affixed to laptops, Occupy participants showed that almost anyone could broadcast live news online. In addition, they could help build an audience for their video by inviting people to talk about what they were seeing" (Preston, 2011)<br>
@ -9,7 +10,7 @@ From my point of view, the Occupy Movement revealed a lot about the relation of
Multiplication could be seen as a way of parallel and multiple presences in diverse private and public places. Internet, Skype, Youtube, voice messages “[r]adio and television have brought major political figures as public speakers to a larger public than was ever possible before modern electronic developments” (Ong, pg. 135). There are two ways of multiplication in the above examples. The one is through a unified collective voice and the other one through spreading the words as a spider net. The 'human microphone' resembles the first examples of collective voices in public, which is the 'ololyga', the female collective utterance (see 'Monstrosity'). Even though may not be a direct expression of resistance, it was an alternative temporary and informal [not specialized] mode of address that was suppressed and used only for specific occasions that were acceptable by the society at that time (see 'Monstrosity'). The second case reminds me of the very ancient practice of gossiping [example of gossip-based algorithms/ Gossip protocol/ peer-to-peer communication]. It has a negative connotation especially when connected with women [text of Federici]. However sometimes this is more an attempt to claim and exchange knowledge when there is no platform for them that practice it. The Internet and social media have the same baton effect and even though this is misused by mainstream political voices, it also serves the voiceless [examples and images].<br>
## The mediation of voice through amplification
In some occasions the amplification of the voice, as a mode of prohibition and presence, becomes possible both literally and metaphorically [definition of amplification]. This means that somebody can amplify their voice with the use of microphone so to strengthen the signal on the spot, and at the same time to make themselves loud and present so to be heard over the dominant ones. Suffragettes' speech-making workshops was a way to provide women with tools “with which to take their concerns out into the public domain” (Rose Gibbs, 2016) or in other words to amplify their voices in public. Speech was a civilized way to respond to violence happening inside homes. Feminists focused on the voice because there is a uniqueness in it, that embodies the speaker when entering a dialogue. It is an approach that rejects the abstract and bodiless universal identity of one's person, that has been developed by the western thought. By such identity I mean that one person is represented as a universal entity that shares the same characteristics and problems with all the people. So this person can be represented by somebody else, like a politician or another member of the family (see Transmitting...through men's speech), in a conversation concerning her/his body. But according to the feminist perspective, each one is unique and carries personal and situated problems and principles, so they are the only one that can represent themselves. Arendt () observes that the speech becomes possible with the existence of a group of people. Even more, the voice through speech- that can take the form of songs passing from one to the other or the collective voice of protesting- links one another and at the same time keeps the individuality of the speaker. In contrast to mainstream political spheres the feminists, like anarchists, were looking for horizontal ways of communication were no voice was dominating over others (Gibbs). Listening and wait everyone to speak, even the most shy ones, is a basic element of this kind of practices.<br>
In some occasions the amplification of the voice, as a mode of prohibition and presence, becomes possible both literally and metaphorically [definition of amplification]. This means that somebody can amplify their voice with the use of microphone so to strengthen the signal on the spot, and at the same time to make themselves loud and present so to be heard over the dominant ones. Microphonic demonstrations in Greece, antifascism and presence, occupying for a couple of hours using speakers, microphone or megaphone broadcasting music and speech...Relatively nazi soundscapes with the megaphone and the van/the history back ... Suffragettes' speech-making workshops was a way to provide women with tools “with which to take their concerns out into the public domain” (Rose Gibbs, 2016) or in other words to amplify their voices in public. Speech was a civilized way to respond to violence happening inside homes. Feminists focused on the voice because there is a uniqueness in it, that embodies the speaker when entering a dialogue. It is an approach that rejects the abstract and bodiless universal identity of one's person, that has been developed by the western thought. By such identity I mean that one person is represented as a universal entity that shares the same characteristics and problems with all the people. So this person can be represented by somebody else, like a politician or another member of the family (see Transmitting...through men's speech), in a conversation concerning her/his body. But according to the feminist perspective, each one is unique and carries personal and situated problems and principles, so they are the only one that can represent themselves. Arendt () observes that the speech becomes possible with the existence of a group of people. Even more, the voice through speech- that can take the form of songs passing from one to the other or the collective voice of protesting- links one another and at the same time keeps the individuality of the speaker. In contrast to mainstream political spheres the feminists, like anarchists, were looking for horizontal ways of communication were no voice was dominating over others (Gibbs). Listening and wait everyone to speak, even the most shy ones, is a basic element of this kind of practices.<br>
@ -46,6 +47,8 @@ The technologies/media/tools/practices that relate the embodied and the distant
##Conclusion
The collective or individual concern of the ones that lack power is spread through different ways of mediation of their voice that overpass the mainstream and dominant modes. In my essay I separated the examples of amplification and multiplication but in conclusion these two terms are easily mixed together. These examples have all the condition I mentioned in the introduction in common. But they also have in common the spirit of oral cultures that are based on presence and vocal expression though they exist in a contemporary western context that differs from them. As Ong (2002, pg.13) says, “[a]t the same time, with telephone, radio, television and various kinds of sound tape, electronic technology has brought us into the age of 'secondary orality'”
The mediation of all these marginalized forms of voicing (see "Monstrosity..." {I can put extracts of my essays as annotations}) is happening in conditions that escape the traditional ways of the main public platform, which is male and expert dominated. Practices have been developed in response to that. All of them have in common the localization, the small scale, the refuse of prohibition and specialization, the participation and presence of people and temporariness. In this essay I will present examples of such practices.
#Notes
<aname="myfootnote1">1</a>: It is an international movement since 2011 for social and economic justice and new forms of democracy with meetings in public spaces
