Ryan Griffis: [iDC] Re: Against Web 2.0
Reply on Franz Nahrada's post on IDC list
On May 31, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Franz wrote:
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.
i don't know that i totally buy David's argument, but i think his cautionary principle stance is well founded... When Franz points to "self organization of large social bodies on a voluntary base," i see some really problematic presuppositions. first of all, "self organization" and "voluntary," while not necessarily competing concepts, certainly have a difficult relationship. Usually, self organization is used to discuss a "bottom up," non self-conscious form of organization... usually not "communities" of multiple self identification. That's why ants, bees and neural networks are such beloved analogies. the natural is a really good justification when the social is slippery. to call something voluntary self organization is to overlook sub rational desire as a primary factor, imho. why would we assume that self-organization is necessarily liberatory when there are plenty of good reasons (with historical examples) to assume that some of the most oppressive/violent tendencies/desires are equally as likely to manifest themselves in the current situation? democracy is inherently unstable, and to assume stability in the form of depoliticized organization seems a bit dangerous. white led race riots in Chicago and elsewhere mid century were "self organized" events with no central leadership. So were the 92 "riots" in LA.
Some people may point to the "self-organization" of the resistance to "free trade" as exemplified in Seattle, Quebec, Genoa, etc, but that overlooks the highly coordinated efforts of small groups of people who work really hard to coordinate physical spaces for gatherings, teach-ins, legal aid reps, first aid response, etc. it may not be as vertical as the state's response to such gatherings, but it's not as if they materialize as a colony of ants following pheromone trails. (well, probably a few of us were doing that actually...)
what choices are we assuming people are making with their vote for social networking?
Facebook and other examples that Matt brought up are examples of horizontal networks of sorts, but ultimately, what values are they re-inscribing through action? Yes, we can learn from each other (and make FOAF hook ups, which could be argued as liberatory)... but if we all want to learn how to be better managers, more successful oppressors, more competitive for capital... the technology is hardly going to change that. it just makes us better self managers. that's why a movie like "V for Vendetta" is really frustrating... it portrays the problem as some highly aestheticized, in-your-face fascism, ala Hitler interpreted through Roger Waters. But we're becoming members, customizing our fascism, ordering it online, having it shipped next day. it comes sealed in bubble wrap, packaged to avoid damage from bumpy rides. It doesn't look like some crazy ideologue spitting manifestos into a microphone wearing some stormtrooper costume. it doesn't have big bronze statues. it's a flag on a shopping bag/banner ad saying "open for business."
As someone else mentioned, more people vote via SMS on american idol than use SMS to organize in the streets.
all of this discussion reminds me of the bio art discussions that surrounded the Paradise Now show a few years ago...
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~nhj2/investnow/index.html
i realize a lot of what i just wrote could sound like Huffington or Bernay's liberal justifications for "limiting democracy" via the robust political PR system we have now, which is not what i intend. but the naturalism of "self-organization" seems a really dangerous set of assumptions to take i think, as it contains the idea of a conflict free, "smooth space" of natural relations. i tried to take something similar up in my own deeply flawed critique of new media gift economics here (Barbrook quickly called me on a few points)
http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/griffis_new_media.html
and the "social construction of blogspace"
http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/griffis_blogspace.html
sorry for the muddled/longish contribution into the thread...
best,
ryan
On May 31, 2006, at 11:01 AM, Franz wrote:
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.
i don't know that i totally buy David's argument, but i think his cautionary principle stance is well founded... When Franz points to "self organization of large social bodies on a voluntary base," i see some really problematic presuppositions. first of all, "self organization" and "voluntary," while not necessarily competing concepts, certainly have a difficult relationship. Usually, self organization is used to discuss a "bottom up," non self-conscious form of organization... usually not "communities" of multiple self identification. That's why ants, bees and neural networks are such beloved analogies. the natural is a really good justification when the social is slippery. to call something voluntary self organization is to overlook sub rational desire as a primary factor, imho. why would we assume that self-organization is necessarily liberatory when there are plenty of good reasons (with historical examples) to assume that some of the most oppressive/violent tendencies/desires are equally as likely to manifest themselves in the current situation? democracy is inherently unstable, and to assume stability in the form of depoliticized organization seems a bit dangerous. white led race riots in Chicago and elsewhere mid century were "self organized" events with no central leadership. So were the 92 "riots" in LA.
Some people may point to the "self-organization" of the resistance to "free trade" as exemplified in Seattle, Quebec, Genoa, etc, but that overlooks the highly coordinated efforts of small groups of people who work really hard to coordinate physical spaces for gatherings, teach-ins, legal aid reps, first aid response, etc. it may not be as vertical as the state's response to such gatherings, but it's not as if they materialize as a colony of ants following pheromone trails. (well, probably a few of us were doing that actually...)
what choices are we assuming people are making with their vote for social networking?
Facebook and other examples that Matt brought up are examples of horizontal networks of sorts, but ultimately, what values are they re-inscribing through action? Yes, we can learn from each other (and make FOAF hook ups, which could be argued as liberatory)... but if we all want to learn how to be better managers, more successful oppressors, more competitive for capital... the technology is hardly going to change that. it just makes us better self managers. that's why a movie like "V for Vendetta" is really frustrating... it portrays the problem as some highly aestheticized, in-your-face fascism, ala Hitler interpreted through Roger Waters. But we're becoming members, customizing our fascism, ordering it online, having it shipped next day. it comes sealed in bubble wrap, packaged to avoid damage from bumpy rides. It doesn't look like some crazy ideologue spitting manifestos into a microphone wearing some stormtrooper costume. it doesn't have big bronze statues. it's a flag on a shopping bag/banner ad saying "open for business."
As someone else mentioned, more people vote via SMS on american idol than use SMS to organize in the streets.
all of this discussion reminds me of the bio art discussions that surrounded the Paradise Now show a few years ago...
http://mrl.nyu.edu/~nhj2/investnow/index.html
i realize a lot of what i just wrote could sound like Huffington or Bernay's liberal justifications for "limiting democracy" via the robust political PR system we have now, which is not what i intend. but the naturalism of "self-organization" seems a really dangerous set of assumptions to take i think, as it contains the idea of a conflict free, "smooth space" of natural relations. i tried to take something similar up in my own deeply flawed critique of new media gift economics here (Barbrook quickly called me on a few points)
http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/griffis_new_media.html
and the "social construction of blogspace"
http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/griffis_blogspace.html
sorry for the muddled/longish contribution into the thread...
best,
ryan
posted by alcramer at
3:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home