Hi Michael and all, I have been catching up on various posts here on the list, especially this current debate.
>My point is that simply taking "networks" and those who >are networked as they might present themselves is likely >to be insufficient--in fact as I argue elesewhere in that >blogpost--the networks are likely to simply amplify >existing inequalities. This argument extends further than the networks we care to inhabit, collectively or individually. Creating networks as a 'singular' mode or function merely brings about new ways of oppressing others more efficiently. Social engineering and behaviour modification through networked systems, is useful if one gains some personal recognition or wealth – yet, if you or a group of individuals wish for something more meaningful in life, then there needs to be a shared ethos built around mutual values, where potential nourishment for the human condition is allowed to flourish accordingly. Long gone are the days where an 'absolute' resolves conflict or social tribulations. Yet, if we look at the way that international forms of global markets have infiltrated our lives, we can observe one main reliant source of 'absolute', and this is 'power'. Money and its variant forms of distribution and modification of all things exchangeable, is a practical and useful medium of control over human interaction, as product, whether as object or immaterial need. Yet, it's the frameworks built to support the privileged and wealthy and the power hungry, which limits much of ours' and human evolution, socially, emotionally, psychologically and practically. The kernel or main function of what a human is, in terms of the various neo-liberalist agendas, is as 'data'. We are material, pliable content for mass production and modification, and the illusion of consumer agency 'is' the (allowed) interface, of which we are encouraged to be part of - through specific defaults and ordered channelling, such as traditional avenues of communication like networked television and other accepted norms of information, which includes Web 2.0 and Facebook etc. Channels where we perceive or feel we are interacting are merely components which teach us new ways of accepting behavioural acceptance of a power greater than ourselves. Our only power, is to interact with the interface given to us, 'unless' we choose other experiences of human related engagement, beyond these interfaces chosen for us and built for us by those who adhere to top-down defaults, and hegemony whether this be ignorantly or consciously. If we tamper, re-hack and change the interfaces and mechanisms put in place, invent our own relational contexts, and manoeuvre in whatever ways that we can into situations of shared empowerment - we may have a chance. I suspect that many whom try to reclaim their consciousness, relearning their relationships with the protocols that have restrained us, know that networks are only part of the problem – yet, connecting with others through the very same networks which also instigate forms of surveillance and cultural domination, gives us a clear message, that these networks are currently being fought over continually. And it should be apparent that, it is not the networks alone we are fighting for, but something much more important 'the freedom to be different from what we are being designed to be by the powers that be'. Inclusion, or human representation is another battle within a complexity of various activities we are all part of, and we may not necessarily able to change or make this better for all, in a clear way. This does not mean that we are losing the battle. It does mean that there is no absolute solution, and this may serve to reflect a natural condition, not of our time, but of life and its complexities. What may need happen, is for many more people to (independently) build their own mutual contexts and shared environments, which are not reliant or 'too' dependent, on those who do not care for their well being. Again, it does not matter whether this co-existence is networked or not, it merely needs to full-fill the needs of those particular group of individuals, accordingly. This is one positive activity the Internet has allowed us to explore at certain levels, but we must not be complicit in ruining our own gains, and mutually gathered resources, by letting the more dominant sectors of web 2.0 infrastructures and frameworks divert us from the real qualities we have built together so far. So, a P2P action, is not a solution, a possible act for agency, a manoeuvre – where individuals can decide choose to mutually in re-engaging through processes of networked distribution, but at the same time just like with any form of 'discovering new territories', there are responsibilities in which we need to acknowledge and actively define what values we share. Because, even though we may remix, or re-invent alternative social patterns, we are all still human, and isn't this part of the issue? Wishing you well. marc _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
