“a ‘populite’ culture might mark the first step toward the realization of . . . ‘a game of perfect information’ where all have equal access to the world of data, and where ‘given equal competence (no longer in the acquisition of knowledge, but in its production), what extra performativity depends on in the final analysis is ‘imagination,’ which allows one either to make a new move or change the rules of the game.” (695)
What’s great about this theory is its accuracy in predicting the selling point of a Xanadu like hypertext web like the world wide web, while simultaneously forgetting that we’re talking about human beings here. There is no possibility for a Xanadu as Nelson envisioned it because power will always be held by a few, and creating the illusion that it’s not just leads to corruption. That’s why none of the communist experiments have worked. They said everything was owned by the all the people, it’s just that certain people held those goods in trust for the others. A socialist internet falls along the same lines.
Nelson’s diatribe on the Computer Priesthood (304) seems oddly archaic as more people know and use computers than ever before, but there is still an elevated status imparted to someone who knows the jargon of a computer and not just how to use it. Corporations are very aware of the power held in the web, and aren’t going to offer control of it to everybody. And while it’s great fun to dream of a utopia where our interconnectivity creates a social rule and unity . . . blah blah blah, the truth is power is held by a few. It always has been, always will be, and no matter how many revolutions we go through, the power is merely exchanged from one priesthood to another, while the populace continues on in blissful disillusionment.
On another note, despite Nelson being a little disillusioned in his utopian dreams, I really enjoyed his predictions of future technology. At least he was trying to move beyond theory into practicality.
2 comments:
I’m intrigued by your suggestion that the internet is controlled by a few individuals. Since its inception the internet was supposed to be, was theorized to be, was fancied to be a work of the common person. And for a brief period, especially with the advent of peer-to-peer file sharing, it seemed that society’s grand experiment with socialized, Marxist internet was going to work. However, something seems to have happened in the interim. For example, Napster died. It was very sad. A big corporation bought Napster, and then Matt killed himself. Also, we live in an historic time when the illusion of connectivity and socialized interneting—through blogs—makes people believe that they are shareholders in the internet. When in reality, each of us is posting on a blog that is owned by google (one of the largest companies in the world). If a blogger fails to buy into the google stock, then no one will read their blog because google will not list them in their index. Thus, this notion of Marxism on the web does not seem to work. This was a very round about way to say that I agree with you Stephen.
By the way, when you use all three of your names, it makes you sound like a serial killer.
I am a cereal killer. I just polished off a bowl of Cheerios with some favre beans and a nice glass of chianti . . . slurp, slurp, slurp.
Post a Comment