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.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
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.
"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.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
On Writing Well
While reading this week's class assignment the following exchange between Phaedrus and Socrates practically leapt off the screen at me:
Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.
Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.
Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.
Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?
Phaedr. How so?
Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?
Phaedr. True.
Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.
Phaedr. No doubt.
Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?
Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.
While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying. That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary. However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?
Phaedr. I thought, Socrates, that he was. And you are aware that the greatest and most influential statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in a written form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity.
Soc. You seem to be unconscious, Phaedrus, that the "sweet elbow" of the proverb is really the long arm of the Nile. And you appear to be equally unaware of the fact that this sweet elbow of theirs is also a long arm. For there is nothing of which our great politicians are so fond as of writing speeches and bequeathing them to posterity. And they add their admirers' names at the top of the writing, out of gratitude to them.
Phaedr. What do you mean? I do not understand.
Soc. Why, do you not know that when a politician writes, he begins with the names of his approvers?
Phaedr. How so?
Soc. Why, he begins in this manner: "Be it enacted by the senate, the people, or both, on the motion of a certain person," who is our author; and so putting on a serious face, he proceeds to display his own wisdom to his admirers in what is often a long and tedious composition. Now what is that sort of thing but a regular piece of authorship?
Phaedr. True.
Soc. And if the law is finally approved, then the author leaves the theatre in high delight; but if the law is rejected and he is done out of his speech-making, and not thought good enough to write, then he and his party are in mourning.
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. So far are they from despising, or rather so highly do they value the practice of writing.
Phaedr. No doubt.
Soc. And when the king or orator has the power, as Lycurgus or Solon or Darius had, of attaining an immortality or authorship in a state, is he not thought by posterity, when they see his compositions, and does he not think himself, while he is yet alive, to be a god?
Phaedr. Very true.
Soc. Then do you think that any one of this class, however ill-disposed, would reproach Lysias with being an author?
Phaedr. Not upon your view; for according to you he would be casting a slur upon his own favourite pursuit.
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Phaedr. Clearly.
In the first line Phaedrus makes the claim that most politicians, including Lysias he thinks, are ashamed of writing and wary of recording their speeches for the written record lest history paint them as Sophists. No disrespect to Phaedrus but as a former political speechwriter I happen to know that he is dead wrong. As Socrates points out speech making/writing is the very lifeblood of political discourse. That is just as true today as it was in ancient Greece. Furthermore, as far as the Sophist fears, I feel that Phedrus is wrong there also. If a Sophist, according to Wikipedia,( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist) is one who is skilled in making incorrect and deceptive arguments sound correct, and using the fears and prejudices of the listener to strengthen an inherently flawed argument, then I'm afraid that our entire political right could be labeled as Sophists. And Glen Beck sure isn't afraid of how his chalk board may be recorded for posterity. But I digress. What really got me going was this:
Soc. Any one may see that there is no disgrace in the mere fact of writing.
Phaedr. Certainly not.
Soc. The disgrace begins when a man writes not well, but badly.
Let the church say, "Amen!" Last week following class I got into a discussion with a classmate regarding "text speak," and how terms like "LOL" and "OMG" have lately appeared in official and academic writings. As a teacher and erstwhile writer, and moreover as someone with a healthy respect for language, text speak is the bane of my existence. Now don't get me wrong, In it's proper forum text speak is quite effective at furthering communication between parties quickly. In our current age of digital communication having a universal shorthand is a good thing. Even I am guilty of ROTFL at my friends. But that's just it, with my friends. Text shorthand has no place, and indeed no meaning outside of a digital forum. However there is an entire generation that uses that shorthand so regularly they have ceased to even recognize it as such. That's a pity.
While grading papers recently I ran across the term "U" short for the actual word "you" so often in student writings it made me wonder whether the students actually knew the real English word. Yes I know that language is an ever evolving thing, and one hundred years from now that may be how we actually spell "you." Today, however, writing well still means writing with standard English. There was even a whole controversy at the New York Times recently regarding a copy editor banning use of the word "tweet" as outside of the Twitter forum the word literally has no meaning. Unless you are referring to the sound those evil birds make outside my window at 5:00 am. http://www.theawl.com/2010/06/new-york-times-bans-the-word-tweet I once had a teacher tell me that as long as one can communicate articulately, either in speech or in writing, people will listen to them regardless of what they are actually saying. That is certainly something that Sophists know, both ancient and contemporary. However I fear that is a lesson completely lost on our current generation. What is to become of our future statesmen and professionals? Would you return to a doctor who wrote, "C U L8TR"on your prescription for a follow up visit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)