On Networks and Sovereigns

So I am reading this week's assignment "The Exploit: A Theory of networks" and the following passage jumps out at me:

"By contrast contemporary political thought often defines sovereignty not as the power to command or execute a law but as the power to claim exceptions to the rule.  The sovereign ruler occupies a paradoxical position, at once within the law (in that the ruler forms part of the body politic) and yet outside the law (in that the sovereign can decide when the law no longer applies). Sovereignty is, then, not power or force but the ability to decide - in particular the ability to decide what constitutes an exceptional situation, one that calls for a "state of exception" and a suspension of the law. (p. 38)

Notwithstanding the usual suspects, historical and contemporary political leaders, I immediately thought of celebrities when I read this. Yes, I applied network theory to Hollywood. I'll cover the political leaders shortly.

One of the most salient Hollywood examples that comes to mind is the recent case of Roman Polanski. Here we have the sovereign, Mr. Polanski fighting extradition on some very serious charges. The basis of defense is pretty much "I'm famous and all that happened a long time ago. Therefore the law shouldn't apply to me." Around this sovereign has arisen a network of supporters - those 700 or so (depending on which reports you read) actors, actresses, directors, producers, etc. who signed a petition demanding his immediate release. The crux of their argument, "He's enormously talented, that really bad thing happened a long time ago, and further we don't like the way he was apprehended. Therefore the law should make an exception."  I will withhold judgement as to the validity (or lack thereof) of these arguments. Ok, maybe I won't.

Now this network, much like the networks Galloway and Thacker present, isn't organized or governed by one central figure. Not even Polanski. The nodes - the actors, et al - are are a particularly heterogeneous bunch whose connections to each other outside of the petition may or may not exist. I suppose you could consider their connection to Hollywood or the film industry as a constant, but to each other, not so much. Further like the Galloway/Thacker model, the nodes may or may not even be directly connected to the sovereign.  

I think it is the idea of the "sovereign" that I find particularly fascinating. Examples of sovereign like figures abound in both contemporary and historical culture.  Another literal sovereign that comes to mind is King Henry VII. As an actual sovereign King Henry attempted to break a network - the Church of England - so that he could do what was previously un-doable; divorce his wife and marry his mistress.  When the King found himself subject to the rules of the church and therefore unable to legitimately divorce his wife he did what any good sovereign would do. He invalidated the church. From where did he derive the power for such an invalidation? He was king, and as such should be above the law, even that law of the church. Here we see network theory in action once again. Though this may be what Galloway and Thacker refer to as a "disciplinary" society ( p. 36) or the beginning of the breakdown of one.

So how does network theory apply to new media. I think the most obvious candidate for examination is the Internet. It functions cooperatively yet has no single overarching, governing body - though recently net neutrality opponents have attempted to grab control. It's myriad nodes - either net users, or the actual web of disparate servers - aren't necessarily connected to each other in any collective sort of organization. What I find particularly interesting is the sphere of influence exerted by particularly powerful nodes. I'm referring to human nodes in this meaning. I wonder if the net will produce digital sovereigns that mimic or rival the sovereigns of yore? Perhaps it already has.