Technoculture a Political Allegory

France 24


Many have argued the internet has become the new public sphere or rather that the public sphere has shifted to existing in the virtual realm. This is viewed as a problem by Jodi Dean who asserts that “The internet extends our capacity to communicate with one another way past the degree where that capacity can have orderly and progressive outcomes” (Dean: 2007). I disagree with this notion because the openness of the internet has created an environment that is more inclusive than the real or tangible public sphere through rendering categories such as race, gender and age null and void because of the power of anonymity. The internet as a public sphere can be compared to the transitional period to democracy experienced in governments from a centralized concentration of power to a decentralized more inclusive regional and local government. The reason I have called technoculture and the internet an allegory for politics is because of the notion of it being a zero institution which is defined as an institution that stands for something without necessarily being the physical thing itself. In the case of the internet my interpretation is that much like the political system which orders the world we live in by ascribing to a set of values, it operates the same way ascribing to the values of liberal democratic practices. People who share the same values make up the publics of the various values considering that internet is a site that is pluralistic. Said values according to Dean are equality, transparency, inclusivity and rationality. These values are all public administrative values transferred from the real world of democracy to the internet public sphere. This gives rise to identity formation or association which in turn reverts back to exclusivity. Those who do not concur on practices or values are excluded from the group. Another form of exclusivity is the fact that unequal trade relations have meant the automatic marginalization of many developing nations who either lack the infrastructure necessary to support technology required to create a linked in technoculture or whose populations are unable to purchase computers to make use of the internet.

The absence of the public sphere through suppression results in situations of dictatorship like that seen in physical countries such as Zimbabwe. The internet as a public sphere is essentially a government programming the public and the increasing blur between who the producer and the consumer is has erased the hierarchical order that exists in the real world from cyberia. The knowledge management theory that “knowledge is power” is reinforced by Jurgen Habermass, who theorized that “Open public discussion can further the enlightenment and democratic ideal” (Dean: 2007). There is the fear that ‘authorities’ such as Boal and company have is the loss of authority or social position in the hierarchy. I agree with the fact that all the freedom to participate is scary but not for the same reasons as the author, the problem with such an uncontrolled level of democracy lies in authenticity. If everyone is able to contribute to the knowledge base the question of verity arises? This essentially means that anarchy simply not an option as a means of governance even in a medium as ‘free’ as the internet because rules are needed to safeguard against pathology. The internet democratizing has meant that users can be more active and form coalitions based on collective consensus on a series of issues, however the paradox is that it is also a site for conflict among those with opposing views. Hence as much as the internet is used as a tool for convergence/ investment through international political economy and communication capital, what really happens is that the individuals who use it and have conflicting notions to other individuals engage in divestments. These divestments are fueled by transnational corporations who have pervaded cyberia and commodified communication, Serj Takian expressed this best when he said that “Truth is knowledge although bi-polar if its attainment is equitable.” This presents another problem theorized by Slavoj Zizek as interpassivity. The fact that the more active one is on the internet the more passive they become to power, in this case the power of those commodifiying communication, because they can track monitor, measure, predict and then program behavior towards a type of consumerism that is beneficial to them. By contrast Chirawu states that “democracy is a process encompassed in party elections and parliamentarism, functioning with presumably meaningful substantive effect regardless of the immense inequalities in wealth and power” (1999: 26). I understand that to mean that as much as it is disagreeable that there are bodies such as transnational corporations running the economy increasingly through the medium which was meant to be tool for the revolution against them, they are needed to provide form of social organization in the virtual society. The form from the real world has been appropriated into cyberia in the interest of the persuasion industry through publicity and using the virtual society to feed into the interested parties’ economy of attention because in cyberia the community constitutes a captive audience. In my opinion this eliminates the notion that internet is a zero institution because it doesn’t only stand for an existing social system, it is in fact transference of a social system into cyber world through technological mediation.

This blurs the lines between the cyber life and the real life which is driven by ecommerce. In the case of the creation of the online community of gamers the consensus is one of escapism or release of inhibitions which virtual technology facilitates. In my personal experience I found that I could relate better with my little sister and her friends once I began to join them in playing the video game called Assassin’s Creed. On the internet the game enables players to form groups to help accomplish the task of removing corrupt officials and causing a trickledown effect of the ideals of revolution and liberation. The message is political and intertextual with real life scenarios which are the essence of cyber culture. All the authors that the internet certainly has the propensity to illuminate but what everyone fears is the possibility that instead of it being a means to an end, a situation will occur where the means will be the end.