Re[2]: <nettime> Organised Networks: Transdisciplinarity and New Institutional Forms

[Albert Hupa <albertioso {AT} tlen.pl>]

As  for  networks,  this  is  one  of  the  most  ambiguous notions in
contemporary thought. From the sociologist point of view, first, there
was   a  group, separate and independent from an individual (Durkheim,
Merton, etc). Groups may be hierarchical, i.e. they have structure.
They also give identity for its members; in classical sociology groups
were prior to individuals.

As   I  see  it, as a result of so called crisis of identity (Giddens,
Bauman, etc.), network is a metaphor coined for relations of individuals
which  do  not give overwhelming identity to them; what's more, the structure is
conditioned   by   constant  movement  of chierarchies. Network, in my
opinion,  is thus more democratic. It is the collection of individuals
in changing relations, that constitute a network.

My brief idea is that the notion of network lacks one thing: a kind of
embedding,  like  the core values, functions, etc., which would be the
basis  for  gathering agents. This core, nowadays, cannot be solid, it
must  be  in  the constant flow. My thesis is that maybe the notion of
swarm  could  be  more explanatory, for it allows for constant change,
vivid  changes  of  relations,  not  to  strong sense of identity, but
nonetheless,  it  gives  the  idea of a core, centre, established, yet
changeable.  What do you think of it? (I am thinking of applying it to
social software - take a closer look at technorati)

Albert Hupa


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net