Is this a parady? Even for ITT, the BS content of this article is stunningly high! But it does have lots of buzz words and polically correct references. . .
Posted by whatALoad on Dec 16, 2004 at 10:36 AM
Strong points by Fusco. But in our “Bullies Without Borders” era, how much does it matter?
For a laugh check out the song parody below (to the tune of an old Mamas & Papas song).
BULLIES
Posted by Jim Newman on Dec 16, 2004 at 12:12 PM
What is this heretofore unknown non-networked past? The very first paragraph of this essay betrays ignorance of what “network” means. Network theory and in fact, the majority of computer science has very little to do with computers or computer networks. Its true that the Internet is an implementation of these ideas, but it is notable not because it is the first, but because it is extremely fast. As for denial of history, communications networks predate human civilization.
The idea that network theorists style themselves as Gibson-esque fantasy characters is laughable considering the rather boring, somber reality of mathematicians in academia who do the heavy lifting and that media depictions of actual hacking dumbed-down for the masses are the object of scorn for real hackers.
Ms. Fusco identifies various activities that have occured in the political sphere as evidence of the historical nature of networks. As it is readily acknowledged that social networks are a feature of society itself, this is completely unnecessary. Advances in computing technology have enabled social networks to proliferate across previously established boundaries, and although this is generally the case with all advances from the development of language until now, they all profoundly influence social change, often providing a catalyst.
However, there are some things that are unique about our current era. Our understanding of the mathematical principles of networks enables us to be somewhat more prescient about the proliferation of social change. For the first time in history, the theoretical underpinnings of a medium are at least partially understood before its broad implementation. Scientists have been successfully applying this understanding to networking problems that model social problems. While not explicitly network-related, the mathematical principles of Game Theory have been successfully applied to economic problems for decades.
As I see it, there are three unique circumstances surrounding digital networks:
1. Advanced knowledge of mathematical networking principles.
2. Rapid and accurate measurement of the network.
3. Widespread deployment of knowledge in the network about the network. In other words, meta-knowledge about the operation of the network that accelerates optimal use.
Posted by MrTeacup on Dec 16, 2004 at 6:45 PM
I’m very sympathetic to Coco Fusco’s analysis here and have admired her performative work since her “Couple in a Cage” performances with Guillermo Gomez-Pena.
Unfortunately a difficulty for me is that there are a lot of very vague assertions and little attempt to historically map (in an essay defending temporal awareness against spatial critique) or specifically identify the problems/offenders.
Additionally, this form of blanket critique also ignores the wonderful critical work being done through subversive mappings and spatialized politics.
Coco, thanks for the provocative statement, could you refine it some more?
Posted by Thivai Abhor on Dec 18, 2004 at 6:28 AM
If you think this article is a collection of “buzz words and polically [sic] correct references,” then I would say there’s a higher-than-average chance that you don’t have a clue about what is being argued over, and that you have no grasp of the ongoing academic conversation to which Fusco is responding.
Teacup: network theory may not refer exclusively to the interweb, but it when it comes to theorizing networks as tools of [or forms of] contemporary, transnational movements of resistance, then guess what: they ain’t talking ‘bout tincans and string. But it seems clear that your criticism is less about problematizing Fusco’s argument and more about allowing you a chance to pontificate [full disclosure: I only skimmed your boring comment].
As for the complaint that the article is too superficial: 1) it was adapted from a lecture she gave rather than a more developed book form and 2) if In These Times even had the space to let Fusco “refine it some more,” then even more idiots on these boards would roll their eyes and complain because the mag wasn’t running an article on why Bush is like Hitler.
Posted by Chill Shorties on Dec 18, 2004 at 8:13 AM
Reader Comments
Is this a parady? Even for ITT, the BS content of this article is stunningly high! But it does have lots of buzz words and polically correct references. . .
Posted by whatALoad on Dec 16, 2004 at 10:36 AM
Strong points by Fusco. But in our “Bullies Without Borders” era, how much does it matter?
For a laugh check out the song parody below (to the tune of an old Mamas & Papas song).
BULLIES
Posted by Jim Newman on Dec 16, 2004 at 12:12 PM
What is this heretofore unknown non-networked past? The very first paragraph of this essay betrays ignorance of what “network” means. Network theory and in fact, the majority of computer science has very little to do with computers or computer networks. Its true that the Internet is an implementation of these ideas, but it is notable not because it is the first, but because it is extremely fast. As for denial of history, communications networks predate human civilization.
The idea that network theorists style themselves as Gibson-esque fantasy characters is laughable considering the rather boring, somber reality of mathematicians in academia who do the heavy lifting and that media depictions of actual hacking dumbed-down for the masses are the object of scorn for real hackers.
Ms. Fusco identifies various activities that have occured in the political sphere as evidence of the historical nature of networks. As it is readily acknowledged that social networks are a feature of society itself, this is completely unnecessary. Advances in computing technology have enabled social networks to proliferate across previously established boundaries, and although this is generally the case with all advances from the development of language until now, they all profoundly influence social change, often providing a catalyst.
However, there are some things that are unique about our current era. Our understanding of the mathematical principles of networks enables us to be somewhat more prescient about the proliferation of social change. For the first time in history, the theoretical underpinnings of a medium are at least partially understood before its broad implementation. Scientists have been successfully applying this understanding to networking problems that model social problems. While not explicitly network-related, the mathematical principles of Game Theory have been successfully applied to economic problems for decades.
As I see it, there are three unique circumstances surrounding digital networks:
1. Advanced knowledge of mathematical networking principles.
2. Rapid and accurate measurement of the network.
3. Widespread deployment of knowledge in the network about the network. In other words, meta-knowledge about the operation of the network that accelerates optimal use.
Posted by MrTeacup on Dec 16, 2004 at 6:45 PM
I’m very sympathetic to Coco Fusco’s analysis here and have admired her performative work since her “Couple in a Cage” performances with Guillermo Gomez-Pena.
Unfortunately a difficulty for me is that there are a lot of very vague assertions and little attempt to historically map (in an essay defending temporal awareness against spatial critique) or specifically identify the problems/offenders.
Additionally, this form of blanket critique also ignores the wonderful critical work being done through subversive mappings and spatialized politics.
Coco, thanks for the provocative statement, could you refine it some more?
Posted by Thivai Abhor on Dec 18, 2004 at 6:28 AM
If you think this article is a collection of “buzz words and polically [sic] correct references,” then I would say there’s a higher-than-average chance that you don’t have a clue about what is being argued over, and that you have no grasp of the ongoing academic conversation to which Fusco is responding.
Teacup: network theory may not refer exclusively to the interweb, but it when it comes to theorizing networks as tools of [or forms of] contemporary, transnational movements of resistance, then guess what: they ain’t talking ‘bout tincans and string. But it seems clear that your criticism is less about problematizing Fusco’s argument and more about allowing you a chance to pontificate [full disclosure: I only skimmed your boring comment].
As for the complaint that the article is too superficial: 1) it was adapted from a lecture she gave rather than a more developed book form and 2) if In These Times even had the space to let Fusco “refine it some more,” then even more idiots on these boards would roll their eyes and complain because the mag wasn’t running an article on why Bush is like Hitler.
Posted by Chill Shorties on Dec 18, 2004 at 8:13 AM