cisler on Sun, 4 Jan 1998 02:41:44 +0100 (MET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> Re: Deleuze Contra Barbrook |
Since being laid off, I have not been on Nettime for a few months, so I may have missed a previous reference to the following: www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm "Was Democracy Just a Moment?" by Robert D. Kaplan <The global triumph of democracy was to be the glorious climax of the American Century. But democracy may not be the system that will best serve the world -- or even the one that will prevail in places that now consider themselves bastions of freedom.> -- www.collegehill.com/ilp-news/boyle.html Internet Legal Practices Newletter "The ILPN Talks with Professor James Boyle about Internet Law, Online Free Speech, and Intellectual Property " >From the interview: BOYLE: I really started my analysis as a response to the "digital libertarianism" that I felt dominated debate on the Net. The key features of this libertarianism were that it tended to be extremely optimistic about communications technology -- seeing in it an inherent tilt towards freedom -- and extremely skeptical about the ability of the state to regulate the Net; the state was seen as too stupid, slow, and geographically too limited to deal with the Net's distributed architecture, its mercurial information flows and its global extent. I found this very interesting. Most kinds of libertarianism are extremely aware of the dangers of state power and often blind to the dangers posed by large concentrations of private power. -- <and an paper by Boyle that relates a bit more to the comments by Wark:> www.wcl.american.edu/pub/faculty/boyle/foucault.htm Foucault In Cyberspace: Surveillance, Sovereignty, and Hard-Wired Censors by James Boyle Abstract: "[T]he problems to which the theory of sovereignty were addressed were in effect confined to the general mechanisms of power, to the way in which its forms of existence at the higher level of society influenced its exercise at the lowest levels.. In effect, the mode in which power was exercised could be defined in its essentials in terms of the relationship sovereign-subject. But ..we have the .. emergence or rather the invention of a new mechanism of power possessed of a highly specific procedural techniques.. which is also, I believe, absolutely incompatible with the relations of sovereignty...It is a type of power which is constantly exercised by means of surveillance rather than in a discontinuous manner by means of a system of levies or obligations distributed over time....It presupposes a tightly knit grid of material coercions rather than the physical existence of a sovereign... This non-sovereign power, which lies outside the form of sovereignty, is disciplinary power..." Steve Cisler cisler@pobox.com home.inreach.com/cisler --- # distributed via nettime-l : no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a closed moderated mailinglist for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@icf.de and "info nettime" in the msg body # URL: http://www.desk.nl/~nettime/ contact: nettime-owner@icf.de