[iDC] Reply to Abe Burmeister

Thu Sep 20 01:26:49 UTC 2007

Hi Nate,

I think you read on Latour's use of network is pretty accurate, and  
he's made it pretty clear that he himself is aware of the limitations  
of his use of the term. In many senses what Latour calls a network is  
really just a tracing of historical connections. The only way these  
connections can be identified as a "network" is through the actions  
of the author themselves. Beyond that even if we assume the author is  
accurate in their tracings, the extent that the various nodes of the  
"network" are actually connected generally look in many ways like  
historical accidents, and of course Latour's sociology often  
resembles history as much as it does sociology. It certainly doesn't  
leave us with either much in the way of either predictions nor  
prescriptions for action.

In contrast the networks Galloway talks about, TCP/IP for the most  
part, a very much *actual* networks, in that the connections between  
the nodes are very much real, easily identifiable and highly  
codified. When you talk about the internet in the singular as if it  
was one object, you can literally (albeit only with massive  
resources) prove that the entire network is deliberately connected  
into one massive entity. The only place you can prove that an ANT  
network is connected together is in the texts of an ANT practitioner.  
That doesn't mean the ANT network is imaginary though, and in fact  
where things get really interesting is when you start looking at the  
mathematics of actual networks, and realize that they are showing  
patterns very similar to what we see in the real world. In particular  
I'm thinking about the work of Albert-László Barabási which develops  
what could be called the mathematics of radical inequality, while  
showing how a network like the internet which had been expected to  
create a space of rather equal distribution instead created a space  
where certain nodes (Google, Ebay, Amazon, Yahoo and the like)  
dominate the landscape. These distribution patterns are pretty much  
the same as what we see in other radically unequal areas, most  
notably in income distribution, which Vilfredo Pareto famously showed  
follows distribution in which 20% of most any given population will  
control 80% of the income.

So then what happens when you go back to ANT, which is at the moment  
essentially an ethnographic/historical technique for doing sociology  
and add network mathematics to the mix? It's not something I can even  
hope to answer, but it also seems like something rather promising  
none the less.

cheers,
Abe

On Sep 19, 2007, at 2:39 AM, nathaniel tkacz wrote:

> Abe - I wholeheartedly agree that left/right politics is not always  
> the best framework for thinking about contemporary politics.  
> Distributed politics - and I'm thinking here of the types of  
> network protocols that Alex Galloway and (in a very different way)  
> Larry Lessig describe in regards to online environments - is  
> certainly an interesting a important alternative to older  
> paradigms. Both these thinkers - and again, in very different ways  
> - point to distributed media, or code, as a key site for the  
> exercise of power. (And here distribution is used in a very literal  
> and technical manner.) Lessig famously remarks that (computer)  
> 'code is law' and Galloway borrows from Foucault to suggest that a  
> new 'diagram of power' is to be found on the web (that he calls  
> protocol).
>
> I would like to invite you to comment further on your concluding  
> remarks about Latour, network theory, and distributed politics.  
> Latour has (humorously) remarked on the problems of ANT as name for  
> his philosophy, suggesting instead that something like actant- 
> rhizome-ontology is more appropriate. He seems to be pointing to an  
> understanding of 'network' that is quite broad. My understanding of  
> Latour's use is that 'network' is 'what there is'. Network is  
> something like a flattened ontology, where everyone and everything  
> are included (or 'real'), from people, to discourse, to objects and  
> so on. In this sense, 'network' is a very amorphous thing; simply  
> an aggregate. I would like for you (or anyone else) to expand upon  
> the gesture you made to 'the actual advances in network theory  
> itself' in relation to Latour's network ontology: what can these  
> advances illuminate? And what is missing from Latour?
>
> Best,
>
> Nate Tkacz
>
> -- 
> Nate Tkacz
> PhD Candidate
> School of Culture and Communication
> University of Melbourne
>
> Contact:
> n.tkacz at pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
> nathanieltkacz at gmail.com
> ph: 0438 759061
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity  
> (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref

Abe Burmeister | abe at abstractdynamics.org | +1 917.806.8177
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Abstract Dynamics | www.abstractdynamics.org
Abe Burmeister Design | www.abeburmeister.com
A Nomad Economics | www.nomadeconomics.org