I've been kicking an idea around since Thanksgiving, so I decided it was time to actually attempt to write it down and see what it looks like when the words are there in front of me.
In The Exploit, a book exploring a theory of networks structuring everything today from politics to more simple interactions among groups and individuals. The authors, Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker, say that networks are not structured on the basis of power, but instead on the basis of protocol - which is to say that control (or modulation, distribution and flexibility, as Galloway and Thacker note) enables relationships in networks to exist.
Part of my worry is that this control is built into the networks themselves by those creating them, whoever that may be. Galloway and Thacker say that "control in networks must aim for an effectiveness that is immanent to the network, in the sense that the most perfectly controlled network is one that controls or regulates itself." If this is true, it would seem that one of the most perfect networks to be found in the real world is that of the universe itself, in that the rules of the sciences - be it physics, chemistry, biology and so forth - regulate how everything relates. More specifically (follow me on this, I promise it's going somewhere), evolution - natural selection - is one of the methods of modulation apparent in nature. The genius of natural selection is that every line of evolution is broken down into endless mutations and variations of the genetic code that result in creatures almost perfectly suited to their particular niche.
My main point, then: can this same logic be applied to us today as citizens or consumers or whatever title your niche merits? Perhaps the genius of networks is that it allows for the same method of modulation as evolution: individuation in extremely small steps leading to, as Gilles Deleuze said "dividuals." This is to say we become discrete points within networks, and even within the masses we are sectioned off into samples, data and markets. Galloway and Thacker say that "in the context of the control societies, individuation is assumed to be continually modulated, precisely because it is informatic, statistical, and probabilistic." The idea of probability raises an interesting idea, springing out of my worry earlier about who structures the networks in the first place: does this cutting up of the market or the masses or the citizenry into more and more discrete and specialized nodes mean that the probability of controlling each "sample" or node is higher? Are we more vulnerable than ever to manipulation (or the even more unseen modulation)?
-the ambassador
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ambassador,
I would need to both agree and disagree with the line of thinking posed in this posting. What I agree with are your concerns regarding those individuals who ultimately structure the networks of society. What I disagree with is the underlying assumption that I pull from this line of thought. That being that this may be a repetitive cycle that we can not or will not escape from.
To date in our ancient and modern political world I would agree with the idea of increased governance and division of the masses into smaller groups inevitably leads to dangerous restrictions placed upon individuality. Individuality being in many respects the ultimate freedom we fight to maintain. Throughout history the greatest form of governance has been Democracy, the ideal form in many peoples eyes and the protector of individuality. Democracy being something that an individual would fight to the death to maintain even if the cause was not ultimately in the best interest of the majority. A prime example being the Iraq war.
Is this truly something to be fearful of though? Do you disagree with the idea that we may actually have a way out of what can be described in some ways as a cyclical pattern of governmental control?
Machiavelli writes in The Discourses about the stages of rule and forms of Government. Machiavelli as you may already know, viewed Rome not as a failed state but as a successful one. His reasoning, simply stated, is that ultimate perfection causes more issues than relative perfection. When someone is unwilling to listen, take advice and compromise there is a very strong possibility of failure. That being said he believed that Rome’s biggest problem was their desire for ultimate perfection, which ultimately lead to their demise.
Machiavelli believed that having some disagreements and minor issues in the political rehelm kept a balance, balance coming from compromise. Today the issue is not that we have minor problems it is that our politicians can not compromise for squat or at least have an extremely difficult time doing so.
The point I am trying to make is this: Does increased control and manipulation over the masses really pose a threat? Or does it simply allow us to continue along the path that Machiavelli would say we have not yet completed.
In The Discourses when speaking about the forms of government Machiavelli’s final form is Anarchy. Why do I bring this up? Because as governmental control increases it allows individuals the leverage and push needed to take control of their society. Now is this good? I believe the argument can go either way. One idea being that an anarchic society can be the ultimate cleansing mechanism. If this is the case than and Machiavelli’s pattern of governmental rule is possible I say why worry so much, simply allow politics to run its course. Maybe in the end we end up achieving what the Romans could not, with what could be the perfect form of government.
To the Statesman - I appreciate your comments on my post, but I do have to disagree on several points.
For one, I don't think there is the underlying assumption you point out: that this could be cyclical. Just as history doesn't move in cycles, neither does evolution.
My second bone of contention is your assertion that democracy is the 'protector of individuality.' Carl Schmitt argued exactly the opposite, that the real goal of democracy was homogeneity, since otherwise there is always a minority group left out of the discussion by the majority. I'm not certain I agree completely with him, either, but at the very least I'd say that individuality is not a top priority of democracy. On the same point, I also disagree vehemently with your mobilization of combat in Iraq as an instance of democracy. It is precisely through the failings of our "democratic" (although, to be really correct, I have to point out that we live in a republic, not a democracy) government that we've found ourselves in this mess. It is not a war being fought to maintain democracy, at that - it is a war being fought to settle a debt.
With all of that in mind, I do have to concede that I can't predict the future. Perhaps Machiavelli was right all along, and what we are experiencing now is simply the natural course of events on the way to near-perfect democracy. Perhaps - but I highly doubt it.
-the ambassador
Post a Comment