“…protocol is an immanent expression of control . Heterogenous distributed power relations are the absolute essence of the Internet network or the genome network, not their fetters.” (54)
The network phenomenon has produced considerable discourse about the power of the network. What characterizes a network is its reducibility, or the ability for us to be able to grasp it. Networks are characterized by their fluidity, the ability to be in multiple places at the same time facilitating actions through protocols. Protocols emerge through complex relationships that are inclusive, encourage negotiation and openness (29). There are not top-down or bottom up commands but currents of communication and distribution that move among agents that connect and branch at the various edges. “Protological control challenges us to rethink critical and political action around a newer framework, that of multiagent, individuated nodes in a metastable network.” (30) The strength of the network relies on the free form of it. Fluidity trumps rigidity.
How these complex metastable networks operate can best be described by understanding the clusters. “From a graph theory perspective, networks can be said to display three basic characteristics: their organization into nodes and edges (dots and lines) their connectivity, and their topology. The same sets of entities can result in a centralized, rigidly organized network or in a distributed, highly flexible network” (32). Networks connect at the nodes and edges, but this control is regulated through modulation rather than manipulation.
“…the question of individuating a network is really a problem of establishing conditions in which a network can exist at all. It is in other words, a problem of sovereignty.” (35)
How populations regulated and controlled in this model becomes the problem the new governmentality must address.To maximize the potential of human capital, biology or life itself must be fused with information technology to optimize productive activity. “Taken together, the two elements of biology and informatics serve to make biopolitical control more nuanced, and more effective”. (73) Information matters a great deal, how the probabilities of risk are managed and the potential disasters must be addressed, as viruses, both cyber and biological can spread at rapid or instantaneous rates because of the overlaps.
 |
| “Emerging infectious diseases such as SARS not only operate across different networks simultaneously but in so doing also transgress a number of boundaries. The lesson here is that network flexibility and robustness are consonant with the transgression of boundaries”. (91) |
New opportunities emerge to resist, modify or transcend existing structures with the possibilities of technology. Similar to guerrilla warfare, resistance and action can come from places when least expected, or appear on all sides at once. Shapeless and faceless, new forms of attack and resistance take on the form of swarms. “A swarm attacks from all directions, and intermittently but consistently- it has no “front”, no battle line, no central point of vulnerability. It is dispersed, distributed, and yet in constant communication.” (66)
 |
“A swarm attacks from all directions, and intermittently but consistently- it has no “front”, no battle line, no central point of vulnerability. It is dispersed, distributed, and yet in constant communication.” (66) |
 |
| "There are two conditions for political change: resistance implies a desire for stasis or retrograde motion, but hypertrophy is the desire for pushing beyond. The goal is not to destroy technology…but push technology into a hypertrophic state, further than it was meant to go”. (96) |
“Galloway and Thacker note the importance of coding, both in the conception of biosciences and technology as well as theory. “Today the very concept of the Human Genome Project, of genetically tailored pharmaceuticals or transgenics or GM foods, and of the ongoing preparedness against bioterrorism and emerging infectious disease, there is the notion of a genetic “code” that remains central to an understanding of “life” at the molecular level” (47-48). The network phenomenon encourages us to think technologically in order to unravel the capabilities and possibilities. Networks are technical and political must be able to theorize at the technical level…”to write theory means to write code.” (100)
Now for the QUESTIONS:
1. What example(s) can you cite that illustrate the fluid rapidly changing and flexible characteristics of the network? What are the biopolitical implications that make it a compelling object for examination?
2. How much does the sovereignty of the U.S. matter in the current geopolitical landscape? Can the U.S. continue its stance of unilateralism as a viable political position in the age of global interconnectivity?
‘The Times, They are a- Changin’
ReplyDeleteIt was once said that, “The sun never sets on the British Empire.” Well, it set. Today, as seen through the dramatic increase of power China possesses in the global marketplace, the unilateralism the United States maintains is highly susceptible in the age of global interconnectivity. As ‘Prolegomenon’ begins by asking, “Who is really running the world?” (Galloway, 1) This raises the question of who possesses power, whether it is an American president or the editor of Internet protocols. While the sovereignty of the United States has remained a ‘given’ in American discourse, the ‘new order is rapidly changing.’ ‘American exceptionalism’ also plays into the current geopolitical landscape. That is, the United States posits itself as an exception globally. Now, networks dominate ‘describing the nature of control today as well as resistance to it’ (4). As The Exploit points out, how power is exercised bears great importance in the current geopolitical landscape. This brings thought to current American discourse regarding the heightened attention and anger toward corporate greed and the economic recession in the U.S. today.
As ‘Occupy’ movements increase, one may be reminded of the social revolution of the 1960s. Have Americans had enough of America? While theorists often focus on the highly scrutinized perceived sovereignty of the U.S. by other countries, the ‘Occupy’ movement proves that there may be internal threats to the execution of power by the U.S. Just as the West ‘created terrorism, ’it is interesting to see if the ‘Occupy’ movements also become targets of the sovereign control of power that the U.S. has internally maintained. That is, ‘sovereignty is always compromised by “the outside”’ (19). Therefore, as Americans become increasingly frustrated with the internal policies of the American governance, it is likely that Bob Dylan’s lyrics may ring true as the sun may be setting on America as we speak.
“Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call. Don't stand in the doorway. Don't block up the hall. For he that gets hurt. Will be he who has stalled. There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows. And rattle your walls. For the times they are a-changin'.
How much does the sovereignty of the U.S. matter in the current geopolitical landscape? Can the U.S. continue its stance of unilateralism as a viable political position in the age of global interconnectivity?
ReplyDeleteLike other empires before it, the United States appears to gain its sovereign strength through its internal and global military networks. If you read the Defense Departments “Base Structure Report Fiscal Year 2010: A Summary of DoD’s Real Property Inventory,” you discover that America has 662 confirmed bases in foreign countries and 4,337 bases inside the United States (http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2010Baseline.pdf). And depending on how you count there are somewhere between 192 & 198 countries in the world. That’s almost 3 ½ bases per country and about 87 bases per state. While the United States doesn’t have bases in every country the edges of its military network are capable of touching any part of the world. With this type global military network I believe America could continue to have a viable position in the age of global interconnectivity. New media networks and global markets, however, challenge the national boundaries and international economic power relations for all countries. Alexandar Galloway and Eugene Thacker point out this deterministic argument: “from this viewpoint the networks of FedEx or AT&T are arguably more important than that of the United States in terms of Global economies, communication, and consumerism” (p. 9). The power of the sword seems to be losing ground to the power of the purse, which is now an electronic purse. In the next age what will determine “super-power” status for a nation?
American exceptionalism, as a free market myth might begin to evaporate as a result of global interconnectivity. While the forces that control the market seem to be invisible, the economic players -the nodes of the system- could become more visible and acts of unilateralism by the United States or any other country might not be possible. China will not be able to manipulate its currency and developing countries could start demanding high standards of living. One way countries may go about combating this loss of power is increased influence over their internal networks. They may attempt to establish tighter control over the networks within their own borders. We have witnessed failed attempts in Egypt, Iran and Libya where the sovereigns were unable to control the flow of information originating within and outside of their borders. The United States is even testing the government’s ability to “control” America’s inner networks. This Wednesday, for the first time in American history, the government is conducting a nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System.” EAS Participants include all broadcasters, satellite and digital radio and television, cable television and wireline video providers who ensure the system is at a constant state of readiness” (http://www.fema.gov/emergency/ipaws/eas_info.shtm). While the command isn’t global, the American government is testing it's ability to send out a single command across the nation. “The White House has the authority to active the system at the national level in the event of a major emergency including terrorist attacks or earthquakes…In the future, in an acknowledgement that most Americans are spending more time in front of smaller screens, federal, state and local agencies will be able to send emergency alerts to smart phones” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/this-is-a-test-is-going-national-next-week/2011/11/02/gIQAnhc5gM_blog.html). In the end, sovereign states will exercise thier power and attempt to control the networks within their borders. As interconnectivity increases sovereignty grows but becomes more vulnerable as the non-human networks take on lives of their own.
“Can the U.S. continue its stance of unilateralism as a viable political position in the age of global interconnectivity?” This question presupposes that the United States is unilateral in its stance, a presupposition which is not as uncontroversial as we might think.
ReplyDeleteGalloway and Thacker conclude their section on “Provisional Response 2: Unilateralism versus Multilateralism” with a provocative Foucauldian paradox: “unilateralism must be understood as a network. This does not mean that it has no center; quite the opposite.” (8). Continuing to channel Foucault, they write: “to become unilateral, it is necessary to become multilateral, but via a veiled, cryptic sort of multilateralism. To become singular, one must become plural” (9).
According to the U.S. Department of State’s Official website, the United States is party to many “active” multilateral treaties, not limited to “the Charter of the United Nations, the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the North Atlantic Treaty” (http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/depositary/). Even more importantly, the United States is a depositary for over 200 of these multilateral treaties. In other words, the U.S. “houses” these historic documents. But what does this mean?
The North Atlantic Treaty is a good case study for how the United States reinforces its unilateralism as it simultaneously becomes multilateral, or rather, how the U.S. increases its singularity through plurality. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed into law under President Truman in 1949. Ten Western European countries joined Canada in sending a foreign minister to Washington, D.C. to sign (participating nations included Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal) (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/north_atlantic_treaty/). Two of the treaty’s articles help to demonstrate the simultaneous co-existence of unilateralism and multilateralism (http://trumanlibrary.org/nato/nato.htm).
Article 5: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them...will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking...such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Article 14: the treaty must be “deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America.”
As Article 5 shows, an attack against one is an attack against the entire network: the one country becomes a pressure point for a unified, though still abstract, “them all.” The individual interests of nation-states at once have global implications, and vice versa. The United States maintains its own distinct flavor and protects itself from outside attacks, yet does so in concert with an original list of ten nations that has only increased in the years since the ratification of the treaty. Moreover, through its role as a depositary for this and other important global treaties and documents, the U.S. enjoys a privileged status “at the center” through the assumed/assigned/inherited role of guardian of the treaty. This becomes yet another way that the U.S. extends its reach and influence globally while bolstering its borders and defenses at home, in the hopes of anticipating and managing any risks or threats that might come this way. In the end, E pluribus unum (“Out of many, one”) seems a fitting, yet still veiled and cryptic national motto.
The purpose of the network is to protect human capital. That is to say, protecting productivity is the goal. It is not so much the individual lives that we are concerned with, but with their lives in conjunction with their contributions to the market. Take for example, the evacuation before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina. In the days that led up to the storm’s landfall on the Gulf Coast, advanced notice was given to residents to the likely severity of the storm’s impact. President Bush declared a state of emergency for MOST of the coast before the hurricane hit. Many residents evacuated. Many others stayed to “ride out the storm” as they had done in the past. It was, it seemed, hurricane season as usual. However when the levees failed in New Orleans, a new situation (and a dire one at that) presented itself to the network. How would the network adapt to the needs of this altered situation? The new plan called for the “safe” housing of stranded individuals until further assistance could be granted. However, the safe house turned death trap when the Superdome could not maintain its structural integrity. The severity of the situation increased and the network once again had to adapt. When the flood waters finally rescinded, what was left in their wake was a destroyed city, nearly 2000 dead, and a blueprint for disaster preparedness that would forever be changed. The biopolitical implications of disaster action plans are far reaching. Just how far can you go to protect citizens? Can you actually FORCE people to evacuate? What if they do not want to leave? What if they cannot AFFORD to leave? Who takes care of them while they are gone? Who is responsible for them when they return to a demolished home? The aftermath of Katrina brought to the surface the value of human capital in New Orleans and because of this, how government reacts to disasters has changed. However, only time will tell if the lessons learned from Katrina will continue to affect us. Will attitudes be different if in the next disaster the government spends billions of dollars to evacuate and rehome citizens who do not contribute to the market? I do not know the answers to these questions for certain, but I have a good idea. Finally, as I drift off to sleep tonight, I will ponder this biopolitical thought: What would government do if it was a large prison population that was in danger? What is the protocol for that?
ReplyDeleteMarcus asks, "How much does the sovereignty of the U.S. matter in the current geopolitical landscape? Can the U.S. continue its stance of unilateralism as a viable political position in the age of global interconnectivity?"
ReplyDeleteWhat example(s) can you cite that illustrate the fluid rapidly changing and flexible characteristics of the network? What are the biopolitical implications that make it a compelling object for examination?
I will use facebook through two examples to answer these questions.
For Marcus's first set of questions, I recently saw a post of my brother's good friend who I am also friends with on facebook regarding a letter she received from facebook inc. It reads (I took out the title and a few parts to insure anonymity):
We have removed your video entiled: " " uploaded at 7:33 am November 4th, 2011. We did this because it appears to contain copyrighted material owned by a third party, such as a video clip or background audio. If you believe this material was removed by mistake, you may file a counter notice of alleged infringement be following the link below.
Please note that if you re-upload this video without filing a counter notice, or if you upload another video that infringes on the rights of a third party, we may remove the content. This could cause your access to the Facebook Video Application, or your Facebook account itself, to be disabled.
To file a counter notice:
For any other questions, please view our Help page:
The Facebook Team
This facebook user found a way around the system and resisted and acted as a part of the swarming attack. She posted the video to youtube first and then used youtube to place it on facebook. Both facebook, acting as a government agency in sense, and the facebook user are suppose to act in compliance with government regulations but the use of networks, in this case, do not provide a fluidity of technological structures in the sovereign's rule. The facebook user simply found a way around technicalities through the use of another similar network.
Secondly, in regards to Marcus's second question concerning the biopolitical implications that illustrate the fluid rapidly changing and flexible characteristics of the network, coincidentally I found an example of this one the same person's facebook page that I previously discussed.
This facebook user had posted a link to www.change.org. This page discusses the need for a petition to the heads of Facebook. It reads:
Why this is Important
On Saturday, November 5th, at 10:22 PM, my friend posted this on Facebook:
"someone save me from myself..."
No one saw this post and Jen completed suicide by jumping from her apartment window.
Therefore I propose that all social networks introduce a system for flagging statements that approximate suicidal thoughts and/or feelings.
If someone posts anything that could be taken as a suicidal statement - all of their friends should be sent an immediate text and/or e-mail to alert them to the statement so that loved ones, friends, and family can act on their post - to try and save their life.
How often in the news do we hear about those that post on a social networking site before they complete or attempt suicide?
We should use the power of these social networks to help prevent these deaths from occurring.
http://www.change.org/petitions/red-alert-system-for-suicide-prevention
I believe the above example fits into this week's, and last week's readings concerning risks and biocitizens. Specifically, what is the role of social networks to intervene in health-related risk situations. What is the networks ethical and moral obligations? As this week's readings engage this question, are there any obligations by the networks - do networks themselves have a citizen-like role to fulfill- and what role does the sovereign hold in such obligations. I think it will be interesting to see how networks and the governments may intervene in health-related concerns in the future.