I have given many arguments (for example here) to show that while AIME is advancing in the right direction, it is not going as far as it could in terms of pluralism, and that there is something shaky, to say the least, about its notion of the necessity of elaborating a common ground, that must be shared if fruitful collaboration and negotiation is to be possible.
I have been following a similar project to Bruno Latour’s AIME, proposed by Bernard Stiegler. He wishes to break up the closed system of an archipelago of a plurality of isolated social and digital enclaves that exists in academia and on the internet. To do so he has invented a comparable dispositif to AIME project, organised around free annotations that people interested in Stiegler’s project (which is quite pluralist I think, although he does not
use that term) can make to the videos of his online courses and seminars, that he publishes on a site dedicated to this activity: http://ldt.iri.centrepompidou.fr/ldtplatform/ldt/front/medias?tag=pharmakon. However, Stiegler still sets up (like Latour) as framing condition the necessity of learning a common language (basically, his language) and of sharing a common ground.
My problem is that, though I find both projects very attractive and inspiring, the very conditions of contribution exclude the bulk of what I am capable of saying, and so the overall result is to disempower me if I stay within those terms. My solution has been to “contribute” as required, enough to remain in phase with the project, and to unleash
my full expressive potential on my blog, on twitter, on facebook, on academia.edu, on youtube.