Jan De Pauw on Wed, 22 Jan 97 17:28 MET |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
nettime: reacting to 'What Kind of Libertarian' |
following text, both in body and attachment, is a reaction to 'What Kind of Libertarian', interview with Louis Rossetto. If you think it is relevant enough to post, feel free. Just please let me know in reply. Thanks. Jan __________________________ exact change only please (considering the Rossetto interview) HEADER According to Louis Rossetto of Wired Ventures, constructive thinking about the digital revolution is hard to come by. A majority of cybercritics tends to rely upon classic left or right wing concepts - at a time when most all progressive voices in the debate agree the old ideological systems have broken down. Admittedly, the formulation of a new frame of thinking is a first rate priority and a challenge one cannot forsake. Thus, St. Louis, here we come ! BODY Rossetto is not easy on his readers. Overall, his tone is defensive and highpitched. He's the one to lay down the rules of the game. The most important of them being we cannot fall back upon notions like 'state', 'massmarket' or 'morals' because those are 19th century and overtaken. He wants to hear new metaphors. Furthermore, personal criticism is out of the question and arguments have to be based on facts. Fully to the point, of course. And finally, we have to appreciate his undertaking enthusiasm. The man clearly knows how to hold his own. And he is adventurous. But then, so am I ! Even if throughout his text Rossetto often confuses developments in cyberculture per se with evolutions on a broader geo-political terrain, the background of his ideas essentially looks like this : the economic, political, social and ethical future world order is centerless. Powerhierarchies will be replaced by horizontally spread, contextually linked groups. National states, unions, monopoly-industries, schools and churches are losing their privileged positions. From now on, society will be regulated by a free market, consumption and democratic discussion that will lead to exchange and consensus. Rossetto considers these developments to be a revolution. He views the internet as both motor ˆnd metaphor of a radically new world. The above being my brief synopsis of Rossetto's ideas, I will now base my considerations on the notions of 'centerlessness', 'democracy' and 'emancipation'. Centerlessness It's common knowledge that the grand discourses and ideological pillars of our society have lost their significance. But even if the current world order has crumbled, this does not mean that everything is now in free-flow. Within the so-called centerlessness of the geo-political stage, new poles are manifesting themselves : * to an important degree, the 'global economy' is determined by the socio-political relief of cities and nations : an estimated 70% of 'worldcapital' never leaves Manhattan; the stock markets of Wall Street, London and Tokyo function as important indexes for world economy; South-East-Asia represents a spectacular growing pole; multinationals, international joint-ventures and (maffia)cartels conduct affairs along the rationale of wage- and taxscales, national debts and corruption-resistence of governments; the near entire African continent is a negative pole per se; and the possible political futures of Hong Kong and Johannesburg are frantically being mapped out. * the falling apart of national states knows two movements : states regroup into bigger blocks (e.g. the Schengen-group), or are shredded into smaller, independent countries (e.g. former Soviet Block). Each of these tendencies has its influence on 'worldeconomy' : either one draws new investments, or relies on the international aid-economy of the military-financial complex. Each of these tendencies is mapped out and controlled by several institutions (IMF, Worldbank, United Nations), who in turn are being run by the richest, most influential states. * the disappearance of traditional industrial giants, under the pressure of a deregulated market, gives rise to more flexible and delocalised molochs. Media, software, cable and telecommunications offer ample examples thereof. Furthermore, a growing automatisation enhances a lucrative leisure-culture based on consumption. Entertainment and tourism industries, and the (financial) service-sector gain importance throughout. Even if it's too early to call some of these new poles 'centers', they can definitely be seen as radar-beacons, carefully scanned by the invisible deciders of worldeconomy. The causal chains between the intelligence they possess and, say, the price of bread are tight. Also, the so-called centerlessness of the internet itself demands nuance. The current debate about name.space is a fitting example. As you well know, each computer in a network has a unique address (i.p. numbers and domain-names). Up to 1995 those addresses were registered for free and monitored by the InterNIC (Internet Network Information Center), under supervision of the National Science Foundation. Since '95, the rights to manage this database are in the hands of Network Solutions Inc, a privately owned company charging $100 for each new registration, and $50 for each annual renewal (from the third year on). Keeping the explosive growth of the internet in mind, it is clear what massive income and control this virtual monopoly has generated. Only since 1996, with the advent of new software, an alternative is available. A new consortium of networks and systemadministrators allows users to register under their own (brand)name (what we call name.space) ˆnd to connect to both name.space and InterNIC databases. Modest fees apply to name registration for websites and networks. For those who just want to use it to browse, name.space is free. At first sight, this development seems to confirm Rossetto's beliefs : the internet is a many-to-many thing. Still, it is remarkable how an alternative like name.space was conceived on the basis of 'parano•d subversion'. Name.space was launched by Paul Garrin, an artist who manifested himself in the eighties as an important exponent of video-activism (the use of home-video to denounce power abuse). Garrin currently runs the cyberforum MediaFilter, that functions as a webwatcher along with likeminded cells like Covert Action Quarterly and Nettime. Not a critical optimism, but rather a chronic allergy to various forms of powerconsolidation seems to be the motivating factor behind their guerrilla-like penetrations. Significant in this respect is the fact that Paul Garrin named his name.space e-zine 'The Black Hole', which is much more grim sounding than the hip 'Wired'. Rather than dissolving in the trip-like, caleidoscopic two-dimensionality of the net, the subversive school tries to stimulate, through cyberspace, a permanent watchfulness to the invisible pirates outside your screenframe. Democracy The internet allows users to communicate and exchange ideas. Software permits the consumption and production of documents. Digital worlds invite reaction and participation. Such forms of (pre-programmed) interactivity, Rossetto understands as fullgrown alternatives to the vertical system of electoral democracy. To him, democracy is an interactive and contextual process of creation and exchange. A process that finds its most radical dimension in the internet. Paul Virilio thinks differently about it. In 1977 already, he published 'Vitesse et Politique', a study of speed in relation to democracy. Up into his latest book 'La Vitesse de LibŽration' (1995), the theme of velocity/speed has kept him occupied. In his considerations he equates the increasing compression of data and speed of transmission - basic characteristics of the internet backbone technology - with the reduction of time and space. According to him, compression and digital transmission lead to the Nothing, to inertia and sollipsism. Absolute speed, instant-communication, are the opposite of democracy, which in fact requires distance and reflexion time. The breakdown of parlementary democracy is a consequence of the absolute speed of digital traffic (speed of light). Not the other way around. In contrast to Rossetto, Virilio does not believe in the emancipating power of telecommunication. In his study of the Gulf War he tested his theories (see 'L'Žcran du dŽsert, analyse des technologies mises en oeuvre dans la guerre du Golfe et de sa 'couverture mŽdiatique', 1991). He concluded that the so-called 'real-time' reporting technologies managed to disengage the public opinion from what was going on and inforce the power of the military-informational complex, run by the Pentagon and CNN. Not only then does the much lauded horizontality of the net seem to be inadequate, the globality of instant-communication further reveals itself to be harmful. Virilio does not detect a new flowering democracy, but a falling back onto oneself. And in that, he finds a new form of feodalism, wherein the individual is the world and wages private wars. In the Lebanon of the eighties, the former Yugoslavia and also in the metropolitan ghettoes, Virilio detects examples of such private wars. Might Rossetto, the rags-to-righteous-riches enterpreneur, himself be involved in such a conflict ? Rossetto refers the ethical discussion about the future to the backrooms of history. Left, right, the state and massmarket are dismissed as empty shells. This is the era of privatised welfare (pensionsavings, insurances in abundance, private education...). Everybody now has a choice and only needs to work hard and pay the bills. In the future products will be made and sold to measure. Much like the question about universal access to the net, Rossetto neither addresses the matter of universal participation in the future. Yet, a recent United Nations study revealed that the gap between rich and poor has doubled in the past thirty years. About one fifth of the world population controls 85% of total income. Furthermore, the study predicts that the total worldproduction will have doubled by the year 2030, but the African part therein will have shrunk from 1,2% to 0,4%. And the most important news of all : the classic model of unequal economic growth (Western Europe, U.S. Latin-America) has revealed itself to be less efficient than the model applied in e.g. South-Korea or Taiwan, where economic growth is linked to equal redistribution of wealth. Those last countries make for the strongest overall growth of the past year ! Emancipation Radical thinking about the future, as Rossetto invites us to deliver, offers two possibilities. Either we erase the majority of the world's population from our tentative notes, or we try to realise a thorough redistribution of means. Given painful 20th century examples of the former option, it seems more appropriate to choose the latter. When talking about redistribution of means, we should not limit our perspective to financial matters of income and debt. The distribution of cognitive means is equally important. Education and training are important weapons. Especially in the war against growing computer illiteracy. Wired calls itself a journalistic forum, reporting on our possible future. But the magazine itself is neologistic on the brink of total loss of meaning. The call for new metaphors is misplaced, because such figurative language will vary according to the degree of complexity mastered by the user. We do not need fit concept packaging, but grammatical navigationsystems that allow the development of non-linear semantics. Classic educational systems, relying on canon, tradition and history, are insufficient in that respect. The simultaneity of information on the net confronts us with problems such as 'version', 'context', 'association' and 'verification'. Those have to be investigated. Not with the intention to end the monologue with a formal 'you are right', but to start the dialogue with a tentative 'I see'. It is naive to want to be a poet in the present crisis of meaning. END Many of the elements Rossetto incorporates in his drawing of the future, are manifest today. But we have to be careful not to take the present for absolute. It is not because old economic monopolies are being eroded, or political centerparties have lost the voter's trust, that no reorganisations or reconsolidations of 'power' are taking place. To put it differently : it is not because current organisational structures are crumbling, that the future is unconditionally open. Wired itself is very busy claiming big pieces of the cake, by reproducing an ever more diversified internet discours wherein Wired itself is occupying center stage (website, magazine, books, tv). Wired is a commercial succes we have to acknowledge. But I want value for my money. Jan De Pauw Wolfstraat 16 9000 Gent 09/233 02 80 rek. : 703-0327227-27 Jan.Depauw@ping.be Attachment converted: HD 2000:LRENG.TXT (TEXT/ttxt) (0000CEE5) Jan De Pauw 32 9 233 02 80 DE VERBEELDING 32 9 225 14 40