[p2p-research] networks presume inequality
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 8 09:19:56 CEST 2010
>From tom rawlings (coming post)
What Networks Are (and What They Are Not) A Response to Galloway’s Position
Paper<http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/what-networks-are-and-what-they-are-not-a-response-to-galloways-position-paper/2010/08/15>
[image: photo of tomas]
tomas
15th August 2010
I’ve been reading the position paper by Alexander R. Galloway; Exploring
New Configurations of Network
Politics<http://www.networkpolitics.org/request-for-comments/alexander-r-galloways-position-paper>,
where 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<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle>
:
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.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:29 AM, Pamela McLean <pamela.mclean at dadamac.net>wrote:
> Hi MicheI
>
> Thanks for pointing to Alexander R. Galloway's Position Paper "Exploring
> New Configurations for Network Politics"
> http://www.networkpolitics.org/request-for-comments/alexander-r-galloways-position-paperI read it with interest. I respond to it from a personal perspective that
> has much to do with Internet enabled networking (and little to do with the
> technical intricacies of the Internet and computer protocols and so on).
> Maybe I should really have responded directly to his blog - but I'm not
> registered there yet so it was easier to just respond here and on posterous
> for now.
>
> I offer a few observations from the viewpoint of one who values the
> Internet for its opportunities for cross cultural collaboration. I am
> intrigued by the challenge of making it truly inclusive. I have been working
> practically on many of these issues during the past ten years in projects
> that use the Internet to enable collaboration between UK and people in rural
> Nigeria, and similar locations (even when the Internet itself does not reach
> to their locations). In this email I will not attempt to explain my thinking
> - but will simply headline some issues, wondering what others are thinking.
>
> - In theory the Internet enables a neutral equal meeting place - and
> many of us are enjoying the opportunity to meet there and be included in
> ways that were previously not possible.
> - There are many issues around meeting as equals in this "neutral"
> space.
> - Physical and financial equality of access to the technology -
> distance from access points, cost of use.
> - Technical/training equality in ease of use - ability to use the
> equipment.
> - Equipment equality regarding bandwidth, processing speed, displays
> etc.
> - Cultural behavioural differences - cultural hierarchies and
> acceptable ways of joining in a conversation - showing respect through
> keeping quiet etc.
> - Language differences - the advantage of people using their
> preferred language.
> - Literacy issues - the inclusion of people whose culture is spoken,
> not written.
> - Cultural differences around the same words - specialist jargon
> words used with a different meaning in general speech, words summoning up a
> different picture in different countries - "a good road" "a family" "the
> local community" "schools" "the power supply" "the shops" "the library" "the
> government" "the police" and so on.
> - When "top-down" opens up communication with "bottom-up" this is not a
> free flow of information as it is not between equals - it is just an add-on
> to an existing unequal system
> - It is only when top-down and bottom-up structures and perceptions
> shift, so that information flows equally between people who have equal
> respect for each other, that we can move towards equality (imagine a top
> down diagram - then a 90 degree shift - then equal exchange).
> - It is important to be aware of every single barrier and to try to
> ensure steps are taken to overcome it.
>
> I'd be interested to hear the views and experiences of others related to
> these issues. (I am not able to read all the P2P posts, but will try to
> follow this thread)
>
> Pamela
>
>
> On 25 July 2010 14:09, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.networkpolitics.org/request-for-comments/alexander-r-galloways-position-paper
>>
>> Dear Tom,
>>
>> the above is a very important challenge to p2p thinking, and I'm hoping
>> you can discuss this for our blog,
>>
>> Michel
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100808/f694a7c9/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list