0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
175 просмотров8 страниц
This paper will claim that changes in ICT have fundamental implications for the private/ public distinction in contemporary social life, rendering such a distinction increasingly permeable. As a consequence of such permeability it is contended that the issue traditionally understood as that of
the ‘Free Rider’, a central problematic in collective action theory since Mancur Olson (Olson, 1965) no longer necessitates organisations in expediting contentious collective action in order to engage with other actors for public goods. Instead this paper claims that such permeability opens up the possibility for something akin to a non-state mediated public sphere, different to that articulated by Habermas which is understood as an interlocutor between private relations and the state apparatus (Habermas, 1962). Consequently it is claimed that the work of Paolo Virno in particular (Virno, 1996) offers a meaningful lens to understand ICT-mediated public space which moves beyond existing categories and engages with new realities observable in numerous examples of contemporary collective action. Such change in collective action, while not inherently ‘emancipatory’, does offer a set of possibilities for political action that transcends traditional theoretical frameworks and methods of practical organisation, while embodying political practices adverse to delegation, representation and the arbitrary imperative
of ‘command’. To conclude, the paper will argue that it is increasingly this new IT-mediated public space that is the site of political action as understood by Hannah Arendt, while the traditionally understood Habermasian sphere is increasingly rendered one of ‘information war’ (Arquila and Ronfeldt, 1996) and biopolitical control (Foucault, 1979).
Оригинальное название
Aaron Peters - The Network Society, Private-Public Sphere(s) and the ‘Soviets of the Multitude’
This paper will claim that changes in ICT have fundamental implications for the private/ public distinction in contemporary social life, rendering such a distinction increasingly permeable. As a consequence of such permeability it is contended that the issue traditionally understood as that of
the ‘Free Rider’, a central problematic in collective action theory since Mancur Olson (Olson, 1965) no longer necessitates organisations in expediting contentious collective action in order to engage with other actors for public goods. Instead this paper claims that such permeability opens up the possibility for something akin to a non-state mediated public sphere, different to that articulated by Habermas which is understood as an interlocutor between private relations and the state apparatus (Habermas, 1962). Consequently it is claimed that the work of Paolo Virno in particular (Virno, 1996) offers a meaningful lens to understand ICT-mediated public space which moves beyond existing categories and engages with new realities observable in numerous examples of contemporary collective action. Such change in collective action, while not inherently ‘emancipatory’, does offer a set of possibilities for political action that transcends traditional theoretical frameworks and methods of practical organisation, while embodying political practices adverse to delegation, representation and the arbitrary imperative
of ‘command’. To conclude, the paper will argue that it is increasingly this new IT-mediated public space that is the site of political action as understood by Hannah Arendt, while the traditionally understood Habermasian sphere is increasingly rendered one of ‘information war’ (Arquila and Ronfeldt, 1996) and biopolitical control (Foucault, 1979).
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
This paper will claim that changes in ICT have fundamental implications for the private/ public distinction in contemporary social life, rendering such a distinction increasingly permeable. As a consequence of such permeability it is contended that the issue traditionally understood as that of
the ‘Free Rider’, a central problematic in collective action theory since Mancur Olson (Olson, 1965) no longer necessitates organisations in expediting contentious collective action in order to engage with other actors for public goods. Instead this paper claims that such permeability opens up the possibility for something akin to a non-state mediated public sphere, different to that articulated by Habermas which is understood as an interlocutor between private relations and the state apparatus (Habermas, 1962). Consequently it is claimed that the work of Paolo Virno in particular (Virno, 1996) offers a meaningful lens to understand ICT-mediated public space which moves beyond existing categories and engages with new realities observable in numerous examples of contemporary collective action. Such change in collective action, while not inherently ‘emancipatory’, does offer a set of possibilities for political action that transcends traditional theoretical frameworks and methods of practical organisation, while embodying political practices adverse to delegation, representation and the arbitrary imperative
of ‘command’. To conclude, the paper will argue that it is increasingly this new IT-mediated public space that is the site of political action as understood by Hannah Arendt, while the traditionally understood Habermasian sphere is increasingly rendered one of ‘information war’ (Arquila and Ronfeldt, 1996) and biopolitical control (Foucault, 1979).
Авторское право:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Доступные форматы
Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
‘The Network Society, Private-Public Sphere(s)
and the Soviets of the Multitude
This paper will clatm that changes in ICT have frndamental implications jor the private/
public distinction in contemporary soctal iif, rendering such a distinction increasingly permeable. As a
consequence ofsuch permeability it ts contended that the issue traditionally widerstood as that of
the ‘Free Rider’, acentral problematic mn collective action theory since Mancur Olson (Olson, 1965) no
longer necessitates organisations in expediting contentious collective action mn order to engage with
other actors for public goods. Instead this paper clatms that such permeability opens up the possibtltty
for something akin to a non-state mediated public sphere, different to that articulated by Habermas which
1s understood as an tnterlocutor between private relations amd the state apparatus (Habermas, 1962).
Consequently itis clatmed that the work of Paolo Virno 1m particular (Virno, 1996) offers ameaningfil
lens to understand ICT-medtated public space which moves beyond existing categories and engages with
new realities observable mm monerous examples of contemporary collective action. Such change in
collective action while not inherently ‘emancipatory’, does offer a set of possibilities for political action
that transcends traditional theoretical frameworks and methods of practical organisation, while
embodying political practices adverse to delegation, representation and the arbitrary imperative
of command’. To conclude, the paper will argue that itis tereasingly this new IT-mediated public space
understood
that 1s the site of political action as understood by Hanah Arendt while the traditionally
Habermastan sphere is increasingly rendered one of ‘formation war’ (Arquila and Ronpidt. 1996) and
biopolitical control (Foucault, 1979)
Jurgen Habermas claims that the public sphere mediates between the private sphere and the
sphere of ‘public cuthortty’. Sucha private sphere comprises civil society in it's most narrow sense -
that of commodity exchange and social labour (Habermas, 1962), While the sphere of public authority is
understood as ‘the state’ and those institutions through which the state's monopoly on legitimate violence
is maintained (\Weber, 1919). For Habermas the public sphere is conceptually distinct from the state in so
muchas “. it fis] asite for the production and circulation of discourses that can in principle be critical
ofthe state”. Furthermore this Habermasian public sphere should be seen as something that striates
both the private sphere and the sphere of public authority acting as. conduit and interface between the
needs of the former and the means of the latter. As Habermas wnites itis “through the vehicle of public
opinion (that) the state (is) 1 touch with the needs of society’ (Habermas, 1962). The primary objectiveof this public sphere is to render the political power of the state ‘a rational power’ that meets the needs of
society (ibid )
For social movement scholars, as well as political theorists, such a distinction between private
and public characterises the nature of political action. Since antiquity, the relationship between intellect,
praxis and poesis has been understood as one of publicness, with political action being a public
performance, ora collective conflict of interests with others ina public space. Contentious collective
action and social movement mobilization is itself contingent upon shared grievances identifiable within
a particular population; the reflection on the shared nature of such grievances and their subsequent
collective expression are by nature ‘public’ acts. When Olson (1965) refers to collective action asa
transformation of ‘latent’ groups to ‘actual’ participants he is describing the crossing of the boundary
between the latency of privacy and the apparency of ‘public’ collective action.
Bimber, Flanagin and Stohl (2005) have written of how they believe that traditional
understandings of collective action, embodied within the Resource Mobilization School, rather than being
simply ‘wrong’, should instead be understood as limited to conditions in which private-public boundaries
are firm and relatively impermeable, such that individuals’ efforts to cross them are characterised by
discrete calculations of free-riding in the context of high costs.! When itis costly, such boundary-crossing
adopts the form off discrete decision: should I bear the costs ofexpressing myselfor acting tn order to
enter the public domain in pursuit of a particular public good? Itis under such circumstances that the
question of the “free rider’ problem should then be understood asa relevant theoretical construct (Bimber,
Flanagin, Stohl, 2005) and an emphasis on formal organisations to broker public forms of participation is
entirely sensical. RMT-oriented scholarship, focused as itis on the issue of the free rider and the necessity
of formal organisations can thus be seen as an adaptation to conditions ofa firm and impermeable private-
public boundary, premising the conditions of collective action upon such a basis.
However when boundaries between private and public domains are porous and easily crossed, people's
negotiation of the boundary typically involves less intentionality and calculation (Bimber, Flanagin,
Stoht, 2005). Moreover, formal structures designed to broker the public-private transition become
seemingly less crucial. ICT-mediated sociality permits such conditions with boundaries between the
two being increasingly easy to cross, frequently on an unintentional level (McDonald 2002, Bennett and
Segerberg, 2011), The result is that boundary crossing in connection with public goods takes on forms
‘ Public transgression has costs of entry such as social stigma and punishment (state-sanctioned or
otherwise)not so readily recognizable in the traditional terms of the logic of collective action - as a result the basic
ontology of collective action and its relationship to the private/ public distinction is challenged.
By way ofa few examples. If someone shared a photo on Facebook of a police officer assaulting
a student in the 2010 UK student movement with a critical comment was this participation within the
aforementioned movement? If not was ita declaration of public or private support? Does such a definition
depend upon intentionality or reception? What of someone making very critical comments on Twitter,
arguing against against tuition fees on a hashtag that might be seen by tens of thousands? These may
seem like flippant and trivial examples but it is undeniable that the distinction between private and public
speech act is becoming increasingly blurred. It was precisely these kinds of action with little private/
public distinction which permitted an impressive episode of collective contention within the UK student
‘movement between November 10th 2010 and December 9th. On November 24th some 100,000 children
participated in school walkouts across the country, without any school student union, with the event being
set up by a few organisations such as the NCAFC and the EAN with few or no meaningful organisational
resources of which to speak A few weeks later on December Sth, a demonstration of some 35,000 FE and
HE students, along with education workers and other member of the public, mobilized in Westminster in
scenes described by the then Sargent-of-Armsas the ‘most intimidating expertence in her parliamentary
career’
Once more the demonstration, simaltaneous with others across the country was not organised by
the official national union of students (NUS) but was instead ‘called’ by a network of organisations and
individuals with little or no formal organisational resources. While the grievances ofa 300% increase in.
fees, the removal of EMA and the parliamentary betrayal of the Liberal Democrats were all particularly
large for certain elements of the population (primarily working class students in FE and HE students who
had voted Liberal Democrat in the previous election) such a response was entirely unexpected. Least of
all by any activists involved,
To retum though to the claim that the essential ontology of collective action and its relationship
to the private! public distinction is challenged. Such a claim is not made lightly. One might argue that the
implications of such change are potentially transformative for our understanding of the mutual
relationships between praxis, poesis and intellect as constitutive of political action, Furthermore, such a
claim challenges assumptions made by those within the RMT camp, among others about the efficacy and
necessity of political organisations and the potentially changed contexts in which such organisations are
advantageous or even necessary. Whereas for Olsonian rationality such organisations are a necessity in
Thomas Swann - "If you take Frodo Baggins from Lord of the Rings and give him a mobile phone, the story ends very differently": Social media, organisational cybernetics and non-hierarchical organisation
(Studies in Medieval Reformation Traditions History, Culture, Religion, Poll Mann, J., Spicer, A., Judith Pollmann, Andrew Spicer-Public Opinion and Changing Identities in The Early Modern Nethe