The last years my ongoing concern lies on the presence of the marginalized female voice in public. During my previous studies I gradually realized how my gendered body had been silenced or marginalized since my early childhood through slight gestures from male figures or institutional powers that were obfuscating the situation. Observing, as well, female members of my family, female teachers, workers and immigrant neighbors of my early age environment I found out different types of marginalization and silencing. Examples would be women working at home or the background of a company, taking care of everything in the family and leaving behind their own desires, men interrupting them when articulating arguments in a political/formal dialogue, underestimating their knowledge. The mediation of their voices and the way they were becoming present, active participants and visible in public spaces and public spheres became one of my main interests. My past projects reflected and responded to that concern. I worked with voice and sound that as forms of art are underestimated in the context of the western visual culture. They are forms connected to irrational attitudes and non western oral cultures[?]. Feminists include and embrace voice in their practices because there is a uniqueness in it that embodies the speaker and their personal stories.<br>
The sound of voices reveals hidden suppressed 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 I met 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 of the same place, when they were physically present. At another time only their words were present in the place and 'participated' in conversations in the square. From my description of 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. ). The women were represented by mediated distant voices. My ongoing research after that lead me to the public forums and public speeches and the technologies that facilitate them.<br>
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 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 has played an important role in that. 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 ongoing concern lies on the presence of the marginalized female voice in public. During my previous studies I gradually realized how my gendered body had been silenced or marginalized since my early childhood through slight gestures from male figures or institutional powers that were obfuscating the situation. Observing, as well, female members of my family, female teachers, workers and immigrant neighbors of my early age environment I found out different types of marginalization and silencing. Examples would be women working at home or the background of a company, taking care of everything in the family and leaving behind their own desires, men interrupting them when articulating arguments in a political/formal dialogue, underestimating their knowledge. The mediation of their voices and the way they were becoming present, active participants and visible in public spaces and spheres became one of my main interests. My past projects reflected and responded to that concern. I worked with voice and sound that as forms of art are underestimated in the context of the western visual culture. They are forms connected to irrational attitudes and oral non western cultures[?]. Feminists include and embrace voice in their practices because there is a uniqueness in it that embodies the speakers and their personal stories.<br>
The sound of voices reveals hidden suppressed 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 I met 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 of the same place, when they were physically present. At another time only their words were present and 'participated' in conversations in the square. From my description of 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. ). The women were represented by mediated distant voices. My ongoing research after that lead me to the public forums and public speeches and the technologies that facilitate them.<br>
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 presence and inhabiting space. Historically, some 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 has played an important role in that. The collective voice represents the marginalized voice of a patriarchal society. The female voice is part of it. The texts deal particularly with the voice as a medium for collective practices (see *the monstrosity...*). 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” and thus to exclude (see *Let’s talk about unspeakable things*).
Research question:
How voice occupies space and reveals dark aspects that can be anything else than harmful for the establishment of a democratic society.
Marginalized people are mediating things that are unacceptable by the society, unspeakable, political incorrect, emotionally overwhelmed, disorderly. They are too personal, too emotional, too embodied. Carson in her text explains how the direct mode of address of women's voices is annoying for the patriarchal society since Ancient Greece. A woman would expose her inside facts that are supposed to be private data. Examples of these facts would be emotions that reveal pleasure or pain either from sexual encounters from before or the birth of a child. "By projections and leakages of all kinds- somatic, vocal, emotional, sexual- females expose or expend what should be kept in" (Carson, 1996, pg. 129) and this reveals the fear of society for death, blood, darkness, birth, the female body. This direct continuity and linkage between the inside and outside was a threat for the human nature and society as it was not filtrated through the rational toll of human, the 'speech'. It has been established that our inner desires and needs have to be expressed indirectly through speech and in the case of women through their men’s speech. It is very common that women stay inside home when their men come out to the streets to protest or talk about their family concerns (Kanaveli, 2012, pg. )*example*.<br>
One ugly form of address in Ancient Greece was an utterance, a high-pitched cry, called ‘ololyga’ and it was a ritual practice of women (more in 'Monstrosity...'). This is a practice that is still valid in countries like Greece or Middle East and it is related to mourning. In their rituals women were also talking offensive bad things under the context of 'aischrologia'. A woman would freely discharge the unspeakable things on behalf of the city. A more recent one is 'hysteria', introduced by Freud, that expresses the psychic events within the woman's body directly to the outside of the body. Female is associated with the bad things of the collective memory. Gossiping is a another form of address that reveals secrets that should have stayed hidden. It is an alternative way of communication existing in the private domains and has been created in response to the exclusion of speech in public. Gossip "provides subordinated classes with a mode of communication beyond an official public culture from which they are excluded" (The Gossip, 2017, p.61). But even in the Ancient Greece this form was annoying. Alkaios describes how talkativeness annoyed him ('Monstrosity...') when he was exiled and Plutarch tells a story about how a secret is spread fast by women creating chaos and ruins, in contrast to men that are keeping themselves from revealing it (Carson, 1996, pg. 130).<br>
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. Their suppression may lead to repressed pain, fanaticism and fascism/totalitarianism.
Marginalized people are mediating things that are unacceptable for the society, unspeakable, political incorrect, emotionally overwhelmed, disorderly. They are too personal, too emotional, too embodied. Carson in her text explains how the direct mode of address of women's voices is annoying for the patriarchal society since Ancient Greece. A woman would expose her inside facts that are supposed to be private data. Examples of these facts would be emotions that reveal pleasure or pain either from sexual encounters or the birth of a child. "By projections and leakages of all kinds- somatic, vocal, emotional, sexual- females expose or expend what should be kept in" (Carson, 1996, pg. 129) and this reveals the fear of society for death, blood, darkness, birth, the female body. This direct continuity and linkage between the inside and outside was a threat for the human nature and society as it was not filtrated through the rational toll of human, the 'speech'. It has been established that our inner desires and needs have to be expressed indirectly through speech and in the case of women through their men’s speech. It is very common that women stay inside home when their men come out to the streets to protest or talk about their family concerns (Kanaveli, 2012, pg. )*example*.<br>
One ugly form of address in Ancient Greece was an utterance, a high-pitched cry, called ‘ololyga’ and it was a ritual practice of women (more in 'Monstrosity...'). This is still valid in countries like Greece or Middle East and it is related to mourning. In their rituals women were also talking offensive bad things under the context of 'aischrologia'; a woman would freely discharge the unspeakable things on behalf of the city. A more recent one is 'hysteria', introduced by Freud, that expresses the psychic events within the woman's body directly to the outside of the body. Female is associated with the bad things of the collective memory. Gossiping is a another form of address that reveals secrets that should have stayed hidden. It is an alternative way of communication existing in the private domains and has been created in response to the exclusion of speech in public. Gossip "provides subordinated classes with a mode of communication beyond an official public culture from which they are excluded" (The Gossip, 2017, p.61). But even in the Ancient Greece this form was annoying; Plutarch tells a story about how a secret is spread fast by women creating chaos and ruins, in contrast to men that are keeping themselves from revealing it (Carson, 1996, pg. 130).<br>
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 unfair economical and political structure of the society 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. Their suppression may lead to repressed pain, fanaticism and totalitarianism.
## 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, like Livestream, Ustream and Youtube stream, was a way for the protesters to be heard in public fast and broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus, experts or official media platforms could not 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) more from his text* 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 and 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, like Livestream, Ustream and Youtube stream, was a way for the protesters to be heard in public fast and broadcast their own news online ("Multiplication..."). Thus, experts or official media platforms could not 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) more from his text* have similarities with the non controlled direct expression of the female bodies in public (like hysteria and aischrologia, ololyga). "Both Livestream and Ustream officials say they simply operate platforms and are not supporting the movements. They have made some adjustments on their platforms and provided some extra resources to accommodate Occupy movement video. Mr. Haot removed advertising from the Occupy channels after some brands complained that they did not want their ads appearing next to streaming video of protesters."
*"Celebrities, politicians and organizers of events (...) soon discovered that streaming services offered by Ustream and the other leading start-up provider, Livestream, could help expand their audience online. Now, the huge amount of user-generated live video produced by the Occupy Wall Street movement has delivered what could be a watershed moment for these companies, potentially helping them gain the audience needed to become viable businesses" (Preston, 2011). But other businesses found live streaming successful after that, like Facebook, Youtube, Instagram and users distribute easily live videos from terrorist attacks or demonstrations.*
*"Both Livestream and Ustream officials say they simply operate platforms and are not supporting the movements. They have made some adjustments on their platforms and provided some extra resources to accommodate Occupy movement video.
Mr. Haot removed advertising from the Occupy channels after some brands complained that they did not want their ads appearing next to streaming video of protesters."
(expert!)
(Preston, 2011)*
### For an agonistic streaming
*streaming media in relation to voice and gender*
This uninterrupted continuity shows us that what is important is not the last message but what is happening right now at present and what practices of democracy are emerging. It is like the 'agonistic' model of democracy of Chantal Mouffe in which there is not an external power that filters it *example of personal licences and creative commons* and no time for thinking about future utopias and realities but what is happening now. It gives space to the conflicts to happen naturally.
Streaming media reflects a sense of liveness and presence. There is no time to reflect or edit the message *Clara and pauline oliveros mediation, workshop at tender*. The audience receives the message directly from the proprietor and can see clearly who is broadcasting, what is the source, how it looks like.
This uninterrupted continuity shows us that what is important is not the last message but what is happening right now at present and what practices of democracy are emerging. It is like the 'agonistic' model of democracy of Chantal Mouffe in which there is not an external power that filters it and no time for thinking about future utopias and realities but what is happening now. It gives space to the conflicts to happen naturally. Streaming media reflects a sense of liveness and presence. There is no time to reflect or edit the message *Clara and pauline oliveros mediation, workshop at tender*. The audience receives the message directly from the proprietor and can see clearly who is broadcasting, what is the source, how it looks like.*chronopoetics*
## Conclusion
The marginalized modes of address share concerns that seem uninteresting or bad for the Western formal and civilized society, that supports a democracy rooting in the Ancient Greek politics. Because of their ugliness, they are suppressed and accused as ugly forms, then filtered and censored before they been expressed in public. They share unfiltered, unedited messages that overpass the rational sphere of speech. From my perspective the medium used by these modes reflects their character. They are based on instant and urgent communication, liveness, "hit and run" approach (from Multiplication...). Today streaming media is used constantly by protesters or citizens for broadcasting news by themselves that are not censored by the government. Streaming media is characterized by the distribution of unfiltered data, the sense of liveness and the continuity (direct distribution) of the message. In this essay I wanted to highlight how the use of streaming media and the concept of streaming in general can be related to these 'ugly' forms of mediation. How these kind of media transmits 'ugly' things, according to the rational society, that marginalized people need to communicate for establishing their own voice and find space for their own desires. I think that the acceptance of continuity and direct mediation can facilitate more democratic processes. The ugly forms of address are pushed away because they reveal the hidden dark side of a 'democratic' society. The allowance of them can become crucial for the democracy we want to be part of. As "the prime task of democratic politics is not to eliminate passions or to relegate them to the private sphere in order to establish a rational consensus in the public sphere. Rather, it is to 'tame' those passions by mobilizing them towards democratic designs" (Mouffe, 2013). Focus more on the media that allow/facilitate this process to happen can open possibilities and alternatives of democratic processes.
The marginalized modes of address share concerns that seem uninteresting or bad for the Western formal and civilized society, that supports a democracy rooting in the Ancient Greek politics. Because of their ugliness, they are suppressed and accused as ugly forms, then filtered and censored before they been expressed in public. They share unfiltered, unedited messages that overpass the rational sphere of speech. From my perspective the medium used by these modes reflects their character. They are based on instant and urgent communication, liveness, "hit and run" approach (from Multiplication...). Today streaming media is used constantly by protesters or citizens for broadcasting news by themselves that are not censored by the government. Streaming media is characterized by the distribution of unfiltered data, the sense of liveness and the continuity (direct distribution) of the message. In this essay I wanted to highlight how the use of streaming media and the concept of streaming in general can be related to these 'ugly' forms of mediation. How these kind of media transmits 'ugly' things, according to the rational society, that marginalized people need to communicate for establishing their own voice and find space for their own desires. I think that the acceptance of continuity and direct mediation can facilitate more democratic processes. The ugly forms of address are pushed away because they reveal the hidden dark side of a 'democratic' society. The allowance of them can become crucial for the democracy we want to be part of. As "the prime task of democratic politics is not to eliminate passions or to relegate them to the private sphere in order to establish a rational consensus in the public sphere. Rather, it is to 'tame' those passions by mobilizing them towards democratic designs" (Mouffe, 2013). Focusing more on the media that allow/facilitate this process to happen can open possibilities and alternatives of democratic processes.
@ -17,22 +17,9 @@ The dominant notion that men are the main operators of public sphere together wi
*example of syrian wartime radio*
## The Roots of the Collective Voice
The voice is a medium for collective practice [orality]. Deliberating communicative processes through the voice/ activating communal activities. “This new orality has striking resemblances to the old in its participatory mystique, its fostering of a communal sense, its concentration on the present moment, and even its use of formulas (...) But it is essentially a more deliberate and self-conscious orality” (Ong. pg.13). The rational individualy empowered democracy stands against the female collective [the male and the others collective that female is part of- metaphorical relation]
the male and the others collective that female is part of
_The voice is a medium for collective practice- orality and literacy_
Decision making through the dialogue (check my reader on orality)
need for presence
Deliberating communicative processes through the voice/ activating communal activities. “This new orality has striking resemblances to the old in its participatory mystique, its fostering of a communal sense, its concentration on the present moment, and even its use of formulas (...) But it is essentially a more deliberate and self-conscious orality, based permanently on the use of writing and print, which are essential for the manufacture and operation of the equipment and for its use as well” (Ong. pg.13).
### The importance of voice in the creation of an agonistic arena of communication. The engagement of the body and the audience
In a contemporary context public speeches are happening in both physical and digital spaces with the help of several media like internet (podcasts and live streaming) and radio (community radios). In the diverse media landscape individuals or groups can easily form and communicate speeches happening in a physical space by themselves without being dependent on a newspaper, publisher or state or men. In the occupy movements known and unknown public speakers would spread their message to an audience by standing in a public square. This action followed the principles of the Speaker's Corner. "Speakers’ Corner symbolizes the kind of forum for debate sought for today’s post-industrial, highly mediated cities, encouraging face-to-face interaction and real-life conversation, albeit arranged by people texting each other, recorded by shooting and uploading video on YouTube, reported on twitter or documented on face book" (Speakers Corner Trust, no date).
_"point A: the importance of voice and body in the public"_
public dynamics
Occupy movement
_The metaphorical relation of female and collective voice_
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>
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. Since the beginning of human societies there was a need for gatherings and sharing of knowledge through verbal communication. The presence of the bodies provides a layer of trust and safety. [History of public speech/public sphere, public forums/orality and butler]. These bodies with their voices create and inhabit the space they are part of. They materialize/visualize their needs. In a contemporary context public speeches are happening in both physical and digital spaces with the help of several media like internet (podcasts and live streaming) and radio (community radios). In the diverse media landscape individuals or groups can easily form and communicate speeches happening in a physical space by themselves without being dependent on a newspaper, publisher or state or men. In the occupy movements known and unknown public speakers would spread their message to an audience by standing in a public square. This action followed the principles of the Speaker's Corner. "Speakers’ Corner symbolizes the kind of forum for debate sought for today’s post-industrial, highly mediated cities, encouraging face-to-face interaction and real-life conversation, albeit arranged by people texting each other, recorded by shooting and uploading video on YouTube, reported on twitter or documented on face book" (Speakers Corner Trust, no date).
The Speaker's Corner, for example, is "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). 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 in these cases. <br>
From my point of view, the Occupy Movement revealed a lot about the relation of the media technology with the presence and resistance, 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, 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>
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>
Multiplication could be seen as a way of parallel and multiple pMultiplication 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
[vey fast jumbing]
[very fast jumbing]
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 ...
@ -52,9 +54,9 @@ Being here now and elsewhere. A way to approach the other that will listen to us
The technologies/media/tools/practices that relate the embodied and the distant voice enhance the presence of the person carrying it or turns against her/him.*
##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. 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. 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. 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
