This is a great read! I think it's way too pessimistic because, as in all the history of class society, for every strategy intended to corral us some bright spark finds possibilities of resistance often within the strategy itself. I think it's a mistake too, or at least too narrow a view, to assume necessarily that solutions will arise in the context of how we relate to or use the technology itself - upheavals in the good old fashioned political or economic sphere, or both, could have a much more profound impact. ( And we get so used to responding quickly to the sheer speed of innovation we sometimes forget there are, as it were, still *geological* processes at work in society) Disagreements aside it's a great and engaging summary of the problem, of one side and, as I said, a *pleasure* to read... michael
--- On Fri, 7/15/11, Lichty, Patrick <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Lichty, Patrick <[email protected]> > Subject: [NetBehaviour] Against Machinic Slavery > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, July 15, 2011, 12:30 PM > On networks and control > > I received my first computer in 1978 from my parent. > That means that I have been in front of a screen for 32 > years as of this writing. > > And I've had it. Or at least I'm having severe > problems with this practice. You see, I'm a digital > native, or at least a technological one, with Star Trek > before my eyes (the ORIGINAL ONE) before kindergarten, and > electronics in my hand before puberty. I have been > before a computer screen, or a television screen all of my > life, but I am not alone. Let me begin that I feel > like a unit of livestock in a Web 2.0, or (3.0, or 4.0 by > now) carrel, tethered by instrumental fear and social > panopticism and workplace Taylorism, as well as > seductive playbourism to keep me immobile. > > The Building of the Borg-machine > Marshall McLuhan wrote on privacy in the electric networks > regarding ubiquitous interpersonal involvement - > > “Electronic media bring us in touch with everyone, > everywhere, instantaneously. Whereas the book extended the > eye, electronic circuitry extends the central nervous > system.. Constant contact with the world becomes a daily > reality. All-at-oneness is our state of being. Closed human > systems no longer exist. For us, the first postliterate > generation, privacy is either a luxury or a curse of the > past. The planet is like a general store where nosy people > keep track of everyone else’s business – a twelve-party > line or a “Dear Abby” column writ large. “The new > tribalism is one where everyone’s business is everyone > else’s and where we are all somewhat testy”. [] > > The key phrase here is “Constant contact with the world > becomes a daily reality.” I believe that McLuhan was > dealing with more of the Orwell/Huxley milieu of constant > broadcast to a passive audience as a measure of pacification > and control, but this is not the case of the fin de > millennium culture. The individual is in constant > contact with the world, the virtual, and all of its > inhabitants. Facebook has over 500 Million subscribers[], > constituting 1 in every 12 people alive. Add Twitter, > academia.edu, Google Wave, LinkedIn, Friendster, Ning, > Second Life, and you have a milieu what beckons for the > individual to go online, work at the computer, shop at the > computer, play at the computer, and fall asleep while the > computer plays your favorite music or plays your favorite > news. In many ways, this echoes the utopian ideals of > 1960's futuristic ephemeral videos of the “House of the > Future” > > Control > Paul Virilio, in his essay, “The Third Interval” > described the lack of differentiation between the > technologically accelerated disabled body, and the > technologically accelerated able body. His assertion > is that the one becomes accelerated in its ability to engage > in the discourse of the able in virtual space while the able > becomes paralyzed in its enmeshing in the virtual. In > short, under virtual acceleration, the body becomes inert > and the virtual gesture takes on lines of flight. The > paralysis is the problem. As in Postman's Technopoly, > the tool becomes a platform which becomes a societal > underpinning, then becomes its own mythology. The > shape of society becomes such that the indivdual is chaped > to fit the machine. Although this may sound like > Englebart's ideas of human-computer coevolution in which the > development of the computer drives the human to adapt and > then build the next improvement, this is not so. It is > the shaping of the individual by the nation-state in its > complicity with the corporate oligarchy to create > desiring-machines and labor-generators in service to the > cybernetic systems of control of the increasing > Fordist/Taylorist regime of First World capital. > In many ways, social media are almost akin to Temple > Grandin's approach to slaughterhouses in which she has > designed devices that calm the cattle by giving them a > gentle squeeze, or her colleague Wendy Jacobs' squeeze > chair. This calming effect of the squeeze is the > feeling of togetherness the Facebook user feels to see their > friends or the receipt of a heart of smiley on Skype. > The reality is that this is not a hug, or a kiss, or > anything of the sort – it is an empty signifier of breath > and flesh. And embodied socialization. Secondly, the > network is a conduit of information that can be quantified > and tracked. The networked individual is placing the > keystroke and lexial quantum into he net, where the > governmental/military/corporate superstructure that runs the > Internet can track our movements, our consumptions, our > desires. > > In the age of the Global economic crisis, there is the > implication of the loss of ability to support oneself for > lack of employment or for that matter, productivity. > The fear of falling behind in any technological proficiency > is replaced by the fear of not being available when an > opportunity appears. This can be anything from a > potential employer or client. Or, there is also the > existential terror of the potential family member, friend, > or lover in distress. It is almost as the broadcast > insurance ads goad us into purchasing their product - > “What if you weren't there to help them?” It is > widely known that advertising is driven by fear and desire, > and this is the constant ratcheting of the machinic > enslavement to the screen. > > In the grip of machinic enslavement, the body becomes > assimilated into the collective mass of labor, fear and > desire, much like the hive like organisms called The Borg > from the television series, “Star Trek: The Next > Generation” These are fragmentary being who have > been literally woven into a collective whole of a cybernetic > milieu and drained of all individuality. In the > neo-McLuhanist network, the individuality is intact but the > continuous interlock to the machine remains. One response is > merely to get out of the cubicle and get on one's feet. > > Tethering > The transparent evil of the electric net is that walking > away is no longer enough. Our mobile devices, iPhones, > and iPads still engage in the act of machinic enslavement in > terms of the net-corp apparatus by merely > miniaturizing the cubicle and having us hold it before us in > our hands. Amazon.com still beckons, our friends tweet > us and Facebook us (don't you think that Facebook can be a > verb?); everything is open season. These are the > invisible silver cords that ties us to the net.collective, > not the human network that would be far more beneficial. But > the individual is torn between the possibility of the > contact that can reverse the pull of control through > resistive communication and the enslavement of being > beholden to it if they use the net.corp system. > > Solution? > In writing this tirade against the screen behind I and so > many have been enslaved, I am resolved to, I am challenged > to provide strategies for resistance, a revolt against the > network. Unfortunately, all I can do is offer an > ambivalence, as this is my work, this is my milieu, > this is my home. The best I have been able to do is to > go to places on the earth where there have been little > contact with the Grid, such as the Western Aleutian > Islands. We cannot, as Postman suggests in a future > post-Technopolic society, abandon all technology to return > to a Classical education. This is akin to us simply > trying to unhook and go to a pre-technological way of life, > or even the technologically-enabled protoindustrial net of > communes outlined in the Invisible Committee’s “The > Coming Insurrection”. Unless we are truly prepared to > abandon the superstructure and ride horseback on the > post-Capital apocalyptic landscape, we have the tendrils of > techne grown into us like a planter's wart. So we are > driven to resistance through intentionality and perhaps > developing an aloofness to the network. Develop > strategies in which one only uses it for necessary > functions, for information, to organize resistance against > it, and to facilitate the embodied presence that is > necessary to human existence. > > My problem is, I have been woven into the Matrix, and even > when I am removed from it, I realize it is still my home and > my point of resistance and cannot totally remove myself from > it. Therefore, I have to either attack it > discursively, stand aloof physically, or drop the carrier > completely at times. I can no longer live with it, nor > can I live without it. I an a reluctant symbiote of > the electric net. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
