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

Sat Aug 7 10:54:37 CEST 2010

I think you might want to read Benkler, again?  Most of this is outlined
there.

I would say that the reference article is a bit inflammatory and publicity
seeking, as a sort of "wouldn't you look silly if you thought networks were
cool and safe" kind of way.

A

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100807/44c33cce/attachment.html>