The Exploit- Prolegomenon (Part 1 of 2)

Prolegomenon “We’re Tired of Trees”

Galloway and Thacker begin their discussion by introducing their good friend Geert Lovink, who has some interesting things to say about networks, the relationship of government to those networks and how power is exercised and distributed. Lovink challenges contemporary notions about the importance of networks and their relation to sovereign power. The two positions Galloway and Thacker extract from this conversation are this: either the geopolitical landscape changed drastically after the monumental events like 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union, or the millennial era is simply “more of the same” (2).

American Exceptionalism

The Western regime or if you will global empire must begin by dissecting the idea of “American Exceptionalism”, as America is an exception in global politics because of its unique position as a producer of technology and a “driving force” for the world culture and economy. In short, America is dominant and exceptional, and because of this fact, sovereignty still matters. So while many would challenge the idea that the sovereignty of nations still has the same impact in the age of ubiquitous information networks, others like Lovink feel that sovereignty is still the most important.



“Thus the idea of American exceptionalism is always refracted through two crucial lenses of modernity: rapid technological change that, today at least, centers around information networks, versus a continued expression of sovereignty alongside the emergence of these global networks. And these two lenses are of course the same two positions we started with: either everything is different or nothing is different” (G&T, 3)

  

Galloway and Thacker ask a few key questions that guide their inquiry:

• Is America a sovereign power or a networked power?
• Has sovereignty beaten back the once ascendant networked form?
• Or has the network from invented a new form of sovereignty native to it?
 

The United States is in a position that wields great influence, but also makes it susceptible to extreme scrutiny. The U.S. while encouraging certain forms of mutlilateralism, have rejected others. In order to unravel the the current global geopolitical landscape, Galloway and Thacker begin with these queries:

First Query: What is the profile of the current geopolitical struggle? Is it a question of sovereign states fighting nonstate actors? Is it a question of centralized armies fighting decentralized guerrillas? Hierarchies fighting networks? Or is a new global dynamic on the horizon?

Second Query: Networks are important. But does the policy of American unilateralism provide a significant counterexample to the claim that power today is network based? Has a singular sovereignty won out in foreign affairs?

                                                                                        Provisional Responses to the Queries:

Political Atomism (The Nietzchean Argument)

The first provisional argument describes an American resistance to mutlilateralism where the United States repsonds to the global networked landscape by reasserting its soveriegnty. "Perhaps the global machinations of "Empire" have elicited an American ressentiment in the form of unilateralism, a nostalgia for the good old days of the Cold War, when war meant the continued preparation for a standoff between technologically advanced power blocs" (6).Galloway and Thacker contend that this response explains part of the phenomenon, but does not account for conflicts within and between networks.

Unilateralism versus Multilateralism (the Foucauldian Argument)

This argument focuses on the relationships between power/knowledge or what characterizes the nature of how this power is exercised. "...the Foucaludian analysis suggests that unilateralism must be understood as a network. This does not mean that it has no center, quite the opposite (8)". In short, power must become plural to be singular or the center of unilateralism is "constructed through its network properties" (9).

Ubiquity and Universality

(the Determinist Argument)

The determinist view explains that media determines political conditions. "For instance, 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. This argument- what we might call a determinist argument- states that to understand the political situation, it is necessary to understand the material and technical infrastructures that provide the context for political conflict"(10). The problem with a determinist argument is that it fails to account for the ubiquity of technology.

Occultism and Cryptography (the Nominalist Argument)



This approach deals with the difficulty of naming things or attempting to substitute a name for a larger group. “To name a network is to acknowledge a process of individuation (“the Internet”, al-Qaeda”), but it is also to acknowledge the multiplicity that inheres within every network (the internet as a meta-network of dissimilar subsets, “al-Qaeda” as a rallying cry for many different splinter groups). This is why developing an ontology of networks… is crucial to the current book and to our understanding of the shape that global politics will take in the near future.” (12)

Before we move to nodes we must first discuss a few more important concepts:

Symmetry or Asymmetry?

A “politics of symmetry” can be understood as two equal powers in conflict. This phenomenon is can easily be understood by examining examples like the Cold War, where the U.S. and Soviet Union were superpowers engaged conflict. Galloway and Thacker contend that a “politics of asymmetry” has replaced symmetrical conflicts. Asymmetrical conflicts involve grassroots or guerrilla type organizations in conflict with large centralized power centers.

The Global Single Command

When a “networked sovereign” flips the switch and sends a single command that can quickly matriculate through the network.

Stay tuned for part 2 which will include the questions...

THE EXPLOIT

“Many have further suggested that asymmetric conflict is in fact a historical response to the centralization of power. This type of asymmetric intervention, a political form bred into existence as the negative likeness of its antagonist, is the inspiration for the concept of “the exploit”, a resonant flaw designed to resist, threaten, and ultimately desert the dominant political diagram.” (21)