DECENTRALIZED COMMUNICATION AND THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Victoria Carty, in her article, “Technology and Counter hegemonic movements,” argued that the “Internet plays a major role in enhancing and redefining political struggle by providing for a “cohesive organized resistance to corporate culture.” Although it would be hard to deny that “Globalization” and “Digitization” have unveiled a dynamic and striking phase, I wondered if these metaphorical “alternative”, “decentralized” modes of communication, lacking a clear incentive and structure, were indeed powerful, effective and sustainable in fighting the colossal structures of capitalism.
Implicit in the argument is the assumption that dissemination of information by itself would effect change. But given the fact that there is an information overload, information exchange through interconnected networks, runs the risk of becoming meaningless and disempowering. Especially in metaphorical democracies, where global structures of corporate capitalism ferment with traditional structures of feudalism, such mediation can pave the way for twisted interpretation and vested implementation, strengthening the linkages between corruption and power. Hence it is important to distinguish between dissemination of information and the ability to effectively resist things to effect change.
I am by no means suggesting that dissemination of information has not been helpful in enlightening people and shaping public opinion. It is and has been. But how many of us would agree that it has effected change or has achieved its desired goals? Let us consider the War in Iraq as an example. Information was disseminated through “alternative” modes of communication, millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. But the war was prosecuted; the occupation is in full stride. Intervention and activism through decentralized structures run the risk of being ephemeral.
In such an instance, multiple centers of decentralized modes of communication may create parallel layers of localized hierarchy by promoting “activists,” “public thinkers”, and other such self styled messiahs of social good, helping them to accumulate tacit power through the display of self-righteousness. After all, fame is a brand - created, nurtured and cultivated. It would be pertinent to mention that pristinely ideological didactic dogmas professing “perfection” can be lethal prescriptions and “non-conformism” can become a conformist trap without necessarily being useful in dismantling or resisting global structures of vested interests.
As a prisoner of mediated cognition, juxtaposing the apparently right and the apparently wrong, I struggle to find my place in this continuum of conflicting interests.
Shrenik.
Victoria Carty, in her article, “Technology and Counter hegemonic movements,” argued that the “Internet plays a major role in enhancing and redefining political struggle by providing for a “cohesive organized resistance to corporate culture.” Although it would be hard to deny that “Globalization” and “Digitization” have unveiled a dynamic and striking phase, I wondered if these metaphorical “alternative”, “decentralized” modes of communication, lacking a clear incentive and structure, were indeed powerful, effective and sustainable in fighting the colossal structures of capitalism.
Implicit in the argument is the assumption that dissemination of information by itself would effect change. But given the fact that there is an information overload, information exchange through interconnected networks, runs the risk of becoming meaningless and disempowering. Especially in metaphorical democracies, where global structures of corporate capitalism ferment with traditional structures of feudalism, such mediation can pave the way for twisted interpretation and vested implementation, strengthening the linkages between corruption and power. Hence it is important to distinguish between dissemination of information and the ability to effectively resist things to effect change.
I am by no means suggesting that dissemination of information has not been helpful in enlightening people and shaping public opinion. It is and has been. But how many of us would agree that it has effected change or has achieved its desired goals? Let us consider the War in Iraq as an example. Information was disseminated through “alternative” modes of communication, millions of people marched against the war in Iraq. But the war was prosecuted; the occupation is in full stride. Intervention and activism through decentralized structures run the risk of being ephemeral.
In such an instance, multiple centers of decentralized modes of communication may create parallel layers of localized hierarchy by promoting “activists,” “public thinkers”, and other such self styled messiahs of social good, helping them to accumulate tacit power through the display of self-righteousness. After all, fame is a brand - created, nurtured and cultivated. It would be pertinent to mention that pristinely ideological didactic dogmas professing “perfection” can be lethal prescriptions and “non-conformism” can become a conformist trap without necessarily being useful in dismantling or resisting global structures of vested interests.
As a prisoner of mediated cognition, juxtaposing the apparently right and the apparently wrong, I struggle to find my place in this continuum of conflicting interests.
Shrenik.
posted by Shrenik Rao at 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home