Franz Nahrada/Rick Maxwell: Re: [iDC] Against Web 2.0
Replies to David Golumbia's post on IDC list
Dear all
I'm itching to get in on this one, but the speed of daily life is fragmenting that desire. For now, let me add this: look at the post wwII history of US imperial aspirations, foreign policy, and rise of transnationals; link in communications needs; re-read Mattelart, Herbert I Schiller, et al. Now come up to the present and look at Dan Schiller's book Digital Capitalism, Vincent Mosco's Digital Sublime, etc; throw in some recent critical media policy studies and reform movement for highlights; and don't forget the history of anti-imperialist movements, which involved both organized and large voluntary mobilizations using whatever means of communication were available. so, yeah, it's not technologically determined. This is a telegraph, not an email.
rick
On May 31, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Franz Nahrada wrote:
David,
your disturbing and provoquative thesis has one shortcoming: it does not really explain why the new absolutism in power should be caused of facilitated by the Internet. Of course I could imagine some interpretations: the internet as fragmentation of the public at large is one possible explanation. Instead of having one "oeffentlichkeit" to deal with, politics is confronted with a "multitude" of neo-biedermaierish communities each one way below the critical mass to inflict substantial social change. Even if, by chance, some of the waves converge, like the mass demonstration on war with 10 million participants around the world, it is an amorphous and powerless crowd, prone to disperse after the gathering and lacking substantial organisation or means of power.
Still I do not buy into your thesis, because you forget to add the fact that for the first time in history complex self-organisation of large social bodies on a voluntary base is not only possible, but also a reality. So far, crowds and social classes were organized by submission and force. This time, for the first time in history, a reassembling of fragmented social atoms on the base of voluntary choice seems to be at the bottomline of social organisation. Technology provides a channell for complex self-organisation beyond any comparison in history.
And there is more ressemblance: dont forget, that a cycle of revolution - counterrevolution and revolution is exactly what happened between 1789 and 1948. The public withdrew from the political arena into a seemingly private world, just to come back to the stage of history reassured and reflected, aware of the depth of the task, cleared of some illusions.
The effect of media needs not to be a momentary one. Some effects can show up in the long run.
Franz Nahrada
GIVE - Globally Integrated Village Environment
The Research Lab on Global Villages
Vienna Austria
www.globalvillages.info
Dear all
I'm itching to get in on this one, but the speed of daily life is fragmenting that desire. For now, let me add this: look at the post wwII history of US imperial aspirations, foreign policy, and rise of transnationals; link in communications needs; re-read Mattelart, Herbert I Schiller, et al. Now come up to the present and look at Dan Schiller's book Digital Capitalism, Vincent Mosco's Digital Sublime, etc; throw in some recent critical media policy studies and reform movement for highlights; and don't forget the history of anti-imperialist movements, which involved both organized and large voluntary mobilizations using whatever means of communication were available. so, yeah, it's not technologically determined. This is a telegraph, not an email.
rick
On May 31, 2006, at 8:46 AM, Franz Nahrada wrote:
David,
your disturbing and provoquative thesis has one shortcoming: it does not really explain why the new absolutism in power should be caused of facilitated by the Internet. Of course I could imagine some interpretations: the internet as fragmentation of the public at large is one possible explanation. Instead of having one "oeffentlichkeit" to deal with, politics is confronted with a "multitude" of neo-biedermaierish communities each one way below the critical mass to inflict substantial social change. Even if, by chance, some of the waves converge, like the mass demonstration on war with 10 million participants around the world, it is an amorphous and powerless crowd, prone to disperse after the gathering and lacking substantial organisation or means of power.
Still I do not buy into your thesis, because you forget to add the fact that for the first time in history complex self-organisation of large social bodies on a voluntary base is not only possible, but also a reality. So far, crowds and social classes were organized by submission and force. This time, for the first time in history, a reassembling of fragmented social atoms on the base of voluntary choice seems to be at the bottomline of social organisation. Technology provides a channell for complex self-organisation beyond any comparison in history.
And there is more ressemblance: dont forget, that a cycle of revolution - counterrevolution and revolution is exactly what happened between 1789 and 1948. The public withdrew from the political arena into a seemingly private world, just to come back to the stage of history reassured and reflected, aware of the depth of the task, cleared of some illusions.
The effect of media needs not to be a momentary one. Some effects can show up in the long run.
Franz Nahrada
GIVE - Globally Integrated Village Environment
The Research Lab on Global Villages
Vienna Austria
www.globalvillages.info
posted by alcramer at
3:11 AM
1 Comments:
Visit Our Web Site at http://buildhomes4u.com If You are Looking forr advice on house floor plans
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home