Who Moved My Congress?

This week's readings examine both sides of the cyber utopia debate.  In "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" author Jaron Lanier laments the advent of what he calls "the hive mind." The hive mind by Lanier's definition is nothing more than old and unsuccessful ideas of collectivism re-packaged for the digital age.  Lanier views the trend of online content aggregation and meta aggregation as the death of critical thinking, informative journalism and public discourse. I think he may be on to something.

Particularly insightful in Lanier's article was his observation of collectivism in pop culture.  I do think it highly ironic that in some 10 seasons of broadcast American Idol has failed to produce one...well American idol. I suppose some would disagree and cite the popularity of Kelly Clarkson. But I doubt Miss Clarkson will sell out Madison Square Garden anytime soon and I certainly wouldn't call her contributions to the musical lexicon monumental, however catchy they may be.  Lanier is right, artists like John Lennon, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, Joni Mitchell, Grandmaster Flash and Bob Dylan would never win a competition like AI because they are all innovators and the very mainstreamy-ness of AI places zero value on innovation. In attempting to develop an "everyman's artist" complete with a built in fan base (i.e. the people who vote for the contentestents) the producers of have produced a package that no one actually wants to buy. Witness the hive mind at work and it's particular failing. The hive mind isn't neccessarily the brightest one.

On the other side of the argument we have Pierre Levy and his work "Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace."  Mr Levy fairly swoons with admiration for the possibilities afforded mankind by collective political activity in cyberspace. In the utopia that he envisions direct democracy becomes a distinct reality with literally every man, woman and child having the ability to represent themselves politically by voting online. Gone are the antiquated ideas of representative democracy and political parties. Congress is no longer even neccessary in in Levy's vision. (I can think of 534 individuals in Washington who might take particular issue with Levy's vision.)  Directly opposite Lanier, Levy seems particularly taken with the notion of collectivity and its implications for personal freedom. So who is right?

While both gentlemen have valid points I think I'll have to give this one to Mr. Lanier.  If only because I think the design of Levy's Intelligent Cities is rather utopian in scope.  Admitttedly I am only about half way through the reading at this point so I apologize if my critique is a little premature. (However I reserve the right to revise my views in the near future.) Levy envisions a political system in which everyone participates with equal zeal and all involved make intelligent, informed choices. Sounds pretty wonderful, right?  However, where Mr. Levy fails is that he doesn't allow for the personal apathy, ignrance, shortsightedness and biases that Lanier is all to aware of.  "...an individual best achieves optimal stupidity on those rare occasions when one is both given substantial powers and insulated from the results of his or her actions." (Lanier 9) Can we say Bush administration? How about the Birther Movement? I do realize how cynical my analysis sounds and that is the particular failing of Levy's collective intelligence.  His analysis is flawed in that it relies on an electorate that is completely informed and personally invested in political outcomes.  I think he may be asking a little too much in an age of severly fragmented attention spans.

Open-Source: Public Enemy #1

I was searching Mashable recently looking for interesting story ideas when I came across this tasty little nugget: "Lobby Group Says Open-Source Threatens Capitalism." The piece details the efforts of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, whom we read about in "Information Feudalism", and who also broadly represents the MPAA among others, to curtail the popularity of open-source software globally.  The group recently requested that developed and developing nations including Brazil, India and Indonesia be placed on an international watchlist, which "effectively puts those countries on a shortlist of governments considered “enemies of capitalism” who aren’t doing enough to protect intellectual property abroad." A little harsh, don't you think?

The major bone of contention for the alliance is the tendency for these nation's governments to use, or advocate the use of, open-source software in their governmental departments. What could be no more than a simple cost cutting measure, in the wake of the worst global economic recession since the great depression, has effectively been labeled...wait for it...communism.  The fifties called, they want their Red Scare back.

As we are exploring the issues surrounding intellectual property this week I thought this article a fitting example of the "global expansion of intellectual property systems" (p.5) that Drahos and Braithwaite detail in Information Feudalism.  What I find particularly ironic is that in sanctioning these nations the Alliance is actually behaving like a communist dictatorship as they are essentially stifling competition. The race towards innovation spurred by the open-source movement benefits both producers and consumers. Isn't market competition- which is precisely what open-source software represents in the intellectual property battle - the very cornerstone of capitalism? As such, shouldn't it be encouraged?

The dubious victory of literally killing market competition is ultimately a losing battle for all concerned. Especially when the mere suggestion of cost effective alternatives can be equated with subverting the entire U.S. economic system. Unfortunately as long as profits speak louder than innovation and consumer satisfaction, powerful lobbyist groups like the IIPA will reign like medieval feudal lords - and we get to be the lowly serfs. Well, I must go now. I have to delete all my bookmarks for free online photo editing tools. I would hate to be labeled a terrorist just because I'm too poor to afford PhotoShop.

[img credit: David Erickson]

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.

Mona Lisa's Smile

One of the things I found fascinating about one of this week's readings, Remediation by Bolter and Grusin, is that though it is much newer than some of our other texts it seemed - to me at least - singularly outdated.  The analysis and examination of virtual reality, a term I don't believe I have actually heard

since 1997, dated the text and made me question it's relevance in today's socially networked world. Of course the themes that Bolter and Grusin explore are evergreen in their nature. The ongoing cycle of re-interpreting, ie remediating older media onto new forms is timeless and especially relevant in the digital space. However I found their particular vehicle of analysis distracting. Interestingly I found the work of McLuhan, written some 50 years ago, prior even to the introduction of the personal computer, infinitely more relevant to discussions of emerging media. How interesting?  

The purpose of this post, however, is to explore the goal of remediation. If remediation could be said to have an overarching "goal" it would be to improve upon preceding media in some tangible way. Of course this is a grossly simplified definition that assumes a collective participation on the part of technological innovators worldwide. However, generally when new tech toys are sold to the public marketing claims never fail to tout how they improve upon prior technology. The smartphone improves upon the cell phone, which improved upon the wired phone, which improved upon the telegraph and so on.  Naturally the definition of "improvement" is highly subjective. However remediation in it's attempt to transcribe older media onto new forms often amounts to not much more than an attempt make  it better in some way. Consider for a moment the Mona Lisa.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what came to mind at the mention of Da Vinci's

seminal work. The talking Mona Lisa is an animated interactive piece currently

on display in Singapore's Alive Gallery. The goal of the Alive Gallery is

literally to bring historical works of art to life.  Viewers can actually

interact with the paintings and ask them questions and the paintings will

respond. Here are a few of the questions one can ask Mona Lisa:

Why don't you have any eyebrows?

Why is your smile so popular?

Where were you painted?

What is in the background?

All inquiries that if posed by anyone other than an eight year old talking to an animated object might be considered quite rude.  My question is: Is this an improvement or an abomination? I suppose it depends on whom you ask.  This particular gallery came up for discussion in a previous semester with about half of the class thinking it quite cool, and the other half ready to tar and feather the gallery owners. On the one hand I can see the appeal of making high art accessible to an audience that it has never reached before. However I do have serious concerns as to that audience's ability to appreciate the work if it literally has to be able to talk back to them first.

The traditionalist in me says that paintings aren't supposed to move or talk. (Also I can't help but picture Da Vinci spinning in his grave at what has been done to his work.) But is this interpretation completely lacking in value? Maybe. Maybe not. I can envision a youngster getting some knowledge out of being able to interact with a work of art, like gaining historical context, or learning about the artist. The problem, at least as I see it, comes in that exhibits like this also foster a disrespect for the aura of the work. A large part of the value of the piece lies in it's ambiguity. Who's to say that whomever programs Mona Lisa's response to the question about her smile has any idea why it's so popular? Or if she is even smiling? Art historians have been debating that for centuries. The answer to that particular question could never be anything more than a highly subjective interpretation. I doubt, however, that an audience of small children, will be sophisticated enough to make that distinction for themselves. Moreover, I wonder if in presenting talking works of art we are setting these kids on a path to a lifetime of disregard for the intrinsic value of the piece, and art itself. I'm not so sure that remediation worked here. Yes it did make the art interactive but at what cost? For me one thing is for certain, my kids (when I have them) will never have a conversation with Mona Lisa if I can help it.

The Emerging Media Ecosystem

Check out this headline: "Meet the First Plant That Requires Facebook Fans to Survive."  Yes, it's about a plant - actual vegetation - that requires social media interaction to thrive. I saw this story on Mashable today and it started me thinking about all the ways in which electronic media really drive everyday life. It begs the question, "Can there be a such thing as too much progress?"

Now before you go labeling me a spineless technophobe - I'm really not, by the way. I would marry my Android phone if I wasn't afraid of how weird the wedding photos might look - consider for a moment the preceding two thousand years of human history. Somehow, remarkably, for most of existance we mere mortals have managed to live, and even reproduce, without the miracle that is Facebook.  I wasn't there but I'm pretty sure my dad "liked" my mom the old fashioned way. In the days of yore people actually watered plants, and plants actually managed to grow and feed the population. I'm not arguing against technological progress, I just wonder if progress always well...progresses.

Think for a moment about the cotton gin. A technological wonder to some, the ruling slave owners, the absolute devil to others, the slaves who were now consigned to more centuries of servitude. Had Eli Whitney bothered to ask them I'm sure their answer would have been a resounding "Screw progress!"

A friend of mine recently told me the story of his little sister who was put on "Internet punishment" for getting a bad grade. As far as I know the boundaries of her grounding did not preclude actual human interaction. Yet in all the weeks of her miserable confinement it never occurred to her to pick up the phone or better yet invite her friends over. The kid literally did not know how to live without social media. This is the way in which I believe technological progress has actually crippled human progress.  And I say this as someone who makes her living (in theory anyway) advising business owners how to promote themselves via social media. 

In reading the blog of one of my classmates, Little Miss Cales - Caleigh I am struck by the fact that she predicts a veritable "Lord of the Flies" type Armageddon should the nation's electronic resources fall victim to attack. I think she is 100% right. Sadly. Somehow we genius humans have technologically advanced ourselves right out of our collective humanity. Remarkable. Can't call, text, tweet, or facebook your neighbor? Try knocking on their door.