[p2p-research] What Networks Are (and What They Are Not) A Response to Galloway’s Position Paper

[Michel Bauwens]

Tom,

this is very enlightening and I wonder if you any more systematic writings
on this, or would we willing to spend some time in developing them?

it seems to me that this would be a very good set of technical principles
that would guarantee a tendency towards the non-hierarchical,

in other words, are there others than the one  you have just described, and
can we think about offering a systematic overview of such network
principles?

Michel

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Tom Rawlings <tom at fluffylogic.net> wrote:

> I've added this to the blog to come later this month...
>
> In Alexander R. Galloway; Exploring New Configurations of Network Politics,
> he suggests that the fascinations with networks that has entered into so
> much critical thinking is not all it’s claimed.  That networks, by
> definition are asymmetric constructs and those using them as tool of
> understanding are failing to grasp this:
>
> "It is common to talk about networks in terms of equality, that networks
> bring a sense of evenhandedness to affairs. It is common to say that
> networks consist of relationships between peers, and that networks
> standardize and homogenize these relationships. It is not important to say
> that such characterizations are false, but rather to suggest that they
> obscure the reality of the situation. Networks only exist in situations of
> asymmetry or incongruity. If not no network would be necessary– symmetrical
> pairs can “communicate,” but asymmetrical pairs must “network.” So in
> addressing the question “What can a network do?” it is important to look at
> what it means to be in a relationship of asymmetry, to be in a relationship
> of inequality, or a relationship of antagonism."
>
> I’ve got to take issue with his initial definitions here:  Networks are
> constructions of two basic units – nodes and links.  The number of nodes and
> links is a very different matter to any power accrued by the node/s or
> bandwidth of the link/s.  Put simply Galloway is seeing power-relations in
> shadows and missing ones in plain sight.  Being a Peers in a network mean
> having the ability to form (and break) links – again it is not a reading of
> the links power/bandwidth.  If one node has many links, then it may lead us
> to conclude that it is a more powerful node than others, yet if that node is
> not a peer – i.e. if others can form links with it, but it cannot choose to
> deny them – then it’s power is illusory.  The same applies where two nodes
> are talking – what is to say they are a symmetrical pair?  Nothing.  In
> short, networks create tendencies – if you can create links, then the
> tendency is towards a less hierarchical structure.
>
> We also see Galloway’s misinterpretation of tendencies as absolutes in his
> discussion of the Robustness Principe:
>
> "The so-called “Robustness Principle,” which comes from RFC 761 on the
> transmission control protocol (TCP), one of the most important political
> principles of distributed networks, is stated as follows: “Be conservative
> in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.” This is called
> the Robustness Principle because if a technical system is liberal in what it
> accepts and conservative in what it does the technical system will be more
> robust over time. (But of course wouldn’t it ultimately make more sense to
> relabel this the Imperial Principle? Or even the Neoliberal Principle?) This
> indicates a second virtue of protocol: totality. As the Robustness Principle
> states, one must accept everything, no matter what source, sender, or
> destination."
>
> The Robustness Principle is a tendency and not a command.  It does not
> force a node to accept everything.  Each node has the will have the capacity
> to interpret the principle differently – not as they are ordered to by any
> protocol.  Thus the parameters of operation are set by via each node,
> resulting is a a tendency towards non-hierarchical structures.  Protocols
> are methods of intercommunication – they are not structures of totality –
> for example, a node can use them to communicate with other nodes, while
> adhering to different protocols within its own communication.  Protocols are
> structures of common agreement underpinned with practical agreement – nodes
> who struggle to use a protocol will disengage from it, so reducing it’s use.
>  Whereas nodes that are conversant with a node will be taken up and used, so
> growing the network.  As such the action of the node is needed to make a
> protocol work – and as such it has a tendency towards a democratic method of
> operation.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tomas
>
> -----------------------
> Tomas Rawlings
> Development Director, FluffyLogic Development Ltd.
> web: www.fluffylogic.net
> tel: 0117 9442233 -
> Also see:
> blog on film & interweb: www.plugincinema.com
> blog on games, p2p, media ecology & evolution:
> http://agreatbecoming.wordpress.com
> tweet: www.twitter.com/arclightfire
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100807/1f6224f0/attachment.html>