Hi Patrick, Thanks for this thoughtful & enquiring piece of text on Netbehaviour,
Annoyingly, I have much to do today & would love to immediately respond to this post. So forgive me, and I will get back to it later... wishing you well. marc > Since today is Two Month Action Day for the occupy Movement, I thought I'd > jot down some very rough ideas. > > On Amorphous Politics > Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a turn toward new forms of > sociopolitical dissent. These include strategies such as cellular forms or > resistance like asymmetrical warfare in terms of global insurgencies, the use > of social media like Twitter and Facebook to lens dissent for actions like > those in Syria, Egypt and Tunisia, Wikileaks and its mirrors, and political > movements that use anarchistic forms of collective action such as the Occupy. > Although my focus is more concerned with the Occupy Movement, what is > evident is what I call an amorphous politics of dissent. Amorphous is > defined as “without shape”, and can be applied to most of the mise en scenes > listed above. > > The dissonance of power in regards to conventional politics can be seen in > its structure. For example, the nation-state has a tiered structure of power > relations. There is a President or Prime Minister, a legislative organ of > MPs or Representatives, Parliaments, Houses, and the like, a judicial organ, > and a Military organ. Although I am referring to US/UK forms of government, > we can also argue for the hierarchical form in terms of the corporation, with > its CEO, Board, Shareholders, Managers, and Workers, and even Feudal lords > with their retinue of vassals and nobles and Warlords with the coteries of > warriors and support personnel. The point to this is that conventional power > operates roughly pyramidally with a centralized figurehead. One can argue > that the pyramid may have different shapes, or angles of distribution of > power, but in the end, there is usually a terminal figure of authority. To > put it in terms of stereotypical Science Fiction terminology, when the alien > comes to Earth the standard story is that it pops out of the spacecraft and > says, “Take me to your leader.” Leadership is the conventional paradigm of > power in Western culture, and dominates the industrialized world. > > Territorialization refers to the exertion of power along perimeters, or > borders. Functionaries expressing the constriction of territory include > customs agents, border patrols, but terminally is expressed by the military > wing of the nation state. This military is also generally pyramidally > constructed in terms of generals, colonels, and other officers leading > battalions, regiments and divisions, which are organized as defenders of a > nation’s sovereignty. These military organs are conversely best optimized to > exert their power against either parallel or subordinate structures. That > is, parallel structures include the armies of other nations, their generals, > colonels, majors, et al, and their troops and ordnance. Subordinate > structures over which military powers can exert power over are the > (relatively) unarmed masses that can be overrun with overwhelming power, > although these forces are more specialized (National Guards and > Gendarmeries). In the conventional sense, power is expressed orthogonally, > whether it is against an equal or subordinate force. > > Another aspect of this conversation relates to power and force through > conflict as expressed by violence, but has its inconsistencies. Most of the > pop cultural examples I will use later in this missive to explain amorphous > action are violent in nature, but is not related to the paradigmatic jamming > of conventional power. It is more related to the fact of conventional > power’s orthogony, or parallelism of exertion of power. There are examples > of violent and peaceful exertion of amorphous dissent as well as orthogonal > conflict. In amorphous conflict or dissent, we could cite the Occupy > movement as passive, and the Tunisian uprising as violent, and the > Gandhi/King model of non-violent action as orthogonal/hierarchical/led, and > World War Two as conventional orthogonal conflict. What is important here is > the inability of conventional politics and power to cope with leaderless, > non-hierarchical, non-orthogonal discourse that refuses to talk in like terms > such as centralization, leadership and conventional negotiations that include > concepts such as demands. This is where the site of cognitive dissonance > erupts. > > The need for the traditional power structure to focus identity on the > antagonist in terms of figureheads is evident in the Middle East and Eurasia, > but is more simply illustrated in the films Alien and Aliens, and Star Trek, > The Next Generation. Both of these feature their respective antagonists, the > “alien” as archetypal Other, and the Borg, symbol of autonomous, collective > community. In Alien, the crew of the Nostromo encounter an alien derelict > ship that has been mysteriously disabled to find a hive of eggs of alien > creatures whose sole role is the creation of egg factories for further > reproduction. In the Alan Dean Foster book adaptation and an extended edit > of the film, Ripley finds during her escape that Captain Dallas has been > captured and organically transformed into a half-human egg-layer whom she > immolates with a flamethrower. However, in the Aliens sequel, the amorphous > society of the self replicating aliens has been replaced by a centralized > hive, dominated by a gigantic Queen that threatens to impregnated the > daughter-surrogate Newt. This transformation creates a figurehead for the > threat and establishes a clear protagonist/antagonist/threat relationship, > and establishes traditional orthogony. > > This simplification of dialectic of asymmetrical politics is also evidenced > in Star Trek the Next Generation by the coming of the Borg, a collective race > of cybernetic individuals. Although representations of the Borg vary as to > fictional timeline, in televised media they began as a faceless hive-mind, > which abducted Captain Jean-Luc Picard as a mouthpiece, not as a leader. It > was inferred that if one sliced off or destroyed a percentage of a Borg ship, > you did not disable it; you merely had the percentage left coming at you just > as fast. However, by the movie First Contact, the Borg now possess a > hierarchical command structure to their network and, more importantly, a > queen. With the assimilated and reclaimed android Lieutenant Data, the crew > of the Enterprise infiltrates higher level functions of the Borg Collective, > effectively shutting down the subordinate elements of the Hive. In addition, > the Queen/Leader is defeated, assuring traditional figurehead/hierarchy power > relations rather than having to deal with the problems of the amorphous, > autonomous mass. There are other “amorphous” metaphors in cinema that > address the issue of amorphousness. These include the 1958 movie, The Blob, > in which a giant amoeba attacks a small town and grows at it engulfs > everything, The Thing, which is about a parasitic alien that doppelgangs its > victims, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers that was a metaphor for the > Communist threat of the Red Scare. > > Perhaps one of the most asymmetric cultural forms in terms of traditional > power is the involvement of Anonymous as part of the Occupy Movement. > Anonymous, which has been called a “hacker group” in the mass media, is a > taxonomy created on the online image sharing community 4chan.org, but has > been ascribed to various factions using the term. According to The State > News, “Anonymous has no leader or controlling party and relies on the > collective power of its individual participants acting in such a way that the > net effect benefits the group.“ The idea of Anonymous fits with the > “faceless collectives” mentioned above, and certainly presents an asymmetric, > if not non-orthogonal, exercise of power. Anonymous is an ad hoc voice of > dissent that emerged against the Church of Scientology (see Project > Chanology), where flash mobs of individuals in Guy Fawkes masks and suits > arrived to protest at sites around the world. It has engaged in other > activities, including hacking credit card infrastructures opposed to handling > donations to Wikileaks and creating media around Occupy Wall Street. However, > without a clear infrastructure and only transient figureheads, Anonymous > functions as an organizing frame for a cloud of individuals interested in > various collective actions, and represents an indefinite politics based on > networked culture. > > Another dissonance between the Occupy Movement and conventional politics is > the perceived lack of agenda. This is due to its dispersion of discourse in > giving its constituents collective importance in voice. What is the agenda of > the disempowered 99% of Americans, or world citizens marginalized by global > concentration of wealth? The agenda is for the disempowered to be heard, > simply put. What does that mean? It means anything from forgivenesss of > student loans to jobs to redistribution of wealth to affordable heath care, > and so on. It isn’t a list, it is a call to systemic change of the means of > production, distribution of wealth and empowerment in political discourse. > It isn’t as simple as “We want a 5% cut in taxes for those making under > $30,000.” It’s more akin to “We’re tired that there are so many sick, > hungry, poor and uneducated, and we want it to end. Let’s figure it out.” It > is the invitation to the beginning of a conversation that has no simple > answers other than the very alteration of a paradigm of disparity that has > arisen over the past 40 years through American capitalism. > > The last difference the traditional power discourse is that of passive > resistance. This is not a new concept, especially under the aegis of Gandhi > and King conceptions. However, it is traditional power’s mere tolerance of > nonviolent resistance that does not result in violence. As long as > resistance does not present undue inconvenience for the circulation of power > and capital, it is allowed. The irony of the technical loophole of Zucotti > Park being privately owned and having few rules allowed the Occupy movement > also highlights the tenuousness of public discourse in Millennial America. > However, even with this oddity, on the two-month anniversary of Occupy Wall > Street, force has begun to be used against the occupiers as traditional > power’s patience grows thin with amorphous politics. In the streets, the > marches are split up, and rules about occupation begin to be enforced with > cupidity. > > The new forms of politics are based on plurality, collectivism and ideas. > The hierarchical nation state has no idea what to do with the amorphous blob > as it grows except to try to contain it, but as with Anonymous, it is a > whack-a-mole game. If one smacks down one protest, two pop up across town, > or five websites pop up on the Net. Shut down Wikileaks, and a thousand > mirror sites show up. People in the streets swarm New York and other cities > throughout the US, and the world, and conflict arises. Asymmetry and > amorphousness are dissonances to traditional power. > Ideas in themselves are not hierarchical. > Desires sometimes have no agendas. > Sometimes people want what is right, and all of it. > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
