Translation: THE RAVEN AV Quarterly of London online edition: http://web.cs.city.ac .uk / homes / louise / raven.html
I hope to make here a brief review of two aspects of culture and its relation to anarchism, more positive and courageous expression of the human spirit, and computers, the most powerful and complex technology produced by the ingenuity human. It may seem odd considering anarchism and computers together, after all, what anarchism is not a marginal political movement and unsuccessful, while computers have been a central as well as effective? Hardly area of \u200b\u200blife that have revolutionized the machines. They are as opposite ends of disorganization and organization, hardly relevant to each other. Well, if they are opposite in meaning, and the difference has to do with organization, but is a distinction of gender rather than of degree, and, as I hope to prove, each promotes critical concerns, both theoretical and practical, for another. Moreover, when we consider more generally, anarchism and computers are hallmarks of the two major cultural forces of history.
Anarchism is a political expression of the anarchy, a cultural force for the proliferation of human forms of life, computers are another technological expression of cultural strength, which we call order that strives to identify and control. In human history both forces have been developed, sometimes in harmony, sometimes in opposition: in the psychic, anarchy is reflected in Eros, warm and cheerful, the order in Thanatos, static and uncertain, in politics, lawlessness freedom is evident in the order in the authority, economic, anarchy is expressed in sharing and giving and taking possession order. Seen thus, the mutual relevance and shared, anarchism and computers is clear. At present, the order is on the rise and anarchy is discredited and disproved. As an anarchist, I've been interested in the nature of, and requirements for, a world where anarchy is the mood. Later, when considering the domain of anarchy, I indicate my view of our relationship with other people and society in general, our ties with the things and the world in general and our relationships with ourselves, our sense of identity , our knowledge and activity. Then, when considering the domain of the order I give the location of computers within it.
By themselves, or anarchy or order is a possible basis for human culture. Anarchy without warrant is limited in its means of existence and their means of expression. Order without anarchy is sterile and self-destructive. Domination current order is both oppressive and dangerous. The discovery of possible links between anarchy and order healthy and, more specifically, determining the requirements for a design and socially beneficial use of computers are among the most urgent tasks we face. In the end, I will describe some of the ways in which computer use challenge to human freedom. Conclude that there is no safe way to use computers and that its benefits are generally purchased at the price of freedom. My own idea of \u200b\u200banarchy is based on several years of reading, discussion and reflection. It's just one of a wide variety of visions of anarchy. Computers have been linked with several conditions for about 18 years and I'm fascinated by its suggestiveness and its challenge. At the intersection of these two interests, as well as many others, lies a persistent enigma, what relationship is possible between the formal and informal? The thoughts expressed here are necessarily incomplete.
Mastering Anarchy
Anarchism is the political and intellectual movement towards anarchy. Anarchy is based on the desirability and possibility innate freedom, creativity and responsible action of individuals, separately and in combination. Anarchism is motivated both by sentiment as by the conviction that the autonomous activity is necessary for growth and development of intelligence, dignity and human happiness. Anarchism has manifested itself in a variety of organizations and theories. But if anarchy is not a specific theory or form of organization, is a breath can find expression in a broad or limited extent in various theories and organizations. Anarchy is not complete or consistent or defined.
anarchy is necessarily Analyze inflict injury, it can not be completely captured in any conclusion. Anarchy is both those forms of human life and in the support you are hostile. Anarchism is optimistic about human nature, and for him just from eradicating the oppression and humanity will flourish in many cultural expressions, and that people are essentially creative and cooperative. Of course, this is an ideal, the performance of any anarchist society involves many compromises with the order, whether to provide some security for those who want a little adventurous existence. But accepting the order, anarchism puts himself in danger of losing freedom. To ensure anarchy, must first secure its foundations, basic links where people are linked to others, themselves and the world around them.
Having indicated in the above key relationships of anarchy, we still get to forms of social organization based on these relationships to solve the practical problems of life. But here I am interested in basic links because that is the level where essential conflict occurs between anarchy and order, and at this level that the social significance of the computer should be understood. The practical problems remain social construction for another occasion. All basic relationships involving people of anarchy. The qualities of objectivity and subjectivity are merged into these relationships. Following the outlines from three perspectives: relationships with others, relations to things, relationships with oneself. These relationships are all connected.
A) Relations between people:
anarchist variants differ in their conceptions of social relations. The anarchist view of society as a restriction on the freedom of individuals. Free relationships would be modeled on contracts between atoms social self, each acting in its own interest. As Marx observed, this model of social relations is based on capitalist ideology is not natural but highly structured, being opposed to freedom. Socialist anarchism, or communism, believe that freedom and human development are rooted in a social matrix. The greatest emphasis of anarchism must be about collective ties. In fact, all relationships have a social anarchist. For people to be free, the relationships between people must be free. People should interact directly with anyone, and should not overpower anyone. Mediation limited interaction and relationships based on the interaction. Mediation alienates people from one another and masks oppression.
People can form voluntary associations to seek common interests. Each can be connected to any number of clear associations or vaguely defined. Partnership brings responsibilities, but not imposing them, nor requirement to comply under threat of sanction. Instead, they are based on a shared ethic of respect for oneself and for others. Bound with an association is voluntary, the degree of ease with which anyone enter or leave one of them will depend on the tradeoffs involved. Some associations will be transitory, other long-term. Can join or overlap each other in space or time. The society consists of a screening organic associations, some will engage in production, other research, and still others on free expression. People will be respected by ignoring their associations or responsibilities. There will be many marriages in which to participate and advocate for people, regardless of the degree of effort that is unable or unwilling to assume. In particular, the partnerships that are born will respect and support.
then relationships can be direct and non-hierarchical, dimension, duration and effectiveness of anarchist unions are limited. Require enormous force of a voluntary association even close to these limits. Overcome that self-imposed and voluntary nature of the group is complicated by the centralization and organizational autonomy. This is a dangerous step, because it eliminates the control of the people involved in the organization. Hierarchy and mediation can be introduced. Such an institution will play itself, expanding the domain in which social relations would be removed anarchists. Autonomous institutions are in basic conflict with anarchy. Can and perhaps should, be tolerated, but only when they are bounded within in terms of precise observation. We will have to accept limits on efficiency. Anarchist society requires participatory ethic, determination to preserve freedom, and understanding of the challenges of freedom. People share their own vision, and respect of others. Both knowledge and practice will be plural. Anarchist community depends on participation in a world participating.
B) Relationships between people and things:
Until recently, anarchism has not had much to say about our relations materials. Like other doctrines has not challenged the simple economic categories of production and consumption. Seek material wealth to be supplied by the bounty of nature enhanced by technology. Management and knowledge of things also pretend to be objective, independent of social ties. This naive view must change. Oppressive attitude towards nature leads to oppression in human relations. The technological choices necessarily affect social ties. An objective position was disseminated things alienation among the people. We must accept limits on consumption. We have no right to destroy nature, to make use of it, commitment to others compels us to renew what we use. We must choose technologies carefully to make sure you do not build social relationships that do not want. We can not look at things "objectively", but in the context of personal, social and natural. This means seeing ourselves as part of nature. Private property in its present form does not exist, or state to protect "property rights." If rights are recognized for things, is based on responsibility and respect.
C) Relationship of people to themselves:
For anarchism, these relationships would expresión de los nexos con los mundos natural y social. La gente se percibiría en sus contextos natural y social, y comprendería las relaciones naturales y sociales envueltas en nuestras percepciones y actividades. Pero estas relaciones no imponen perspectivas y actividades de cada uno. Cada cual será autónomo: libre, creativo y responsable, al tiempo que la razón y la práctica anarquista deban ser firmemente arraigadas en los contextos natural y social, así como en todo individuo. Eso implica que los entornos social y natural de la gente deberán ser relativamente estables.
El dominio del Orden
is altogether different realm of anarchy. Where anarchy supports the creative power, the order supports the dominant power. The order seeks to restrain and maintain. Where anarchy is part of the reason, practice and theory within the contexts of social and natural relations, the order seeks to separate sharply the reason for these contexts, to reify as a technology of domination over the social and natural worlds. This separation of reason and reality under the influence of dominance creates a tension twisted resolved in the creation of two ideologies: rationalism and instrumentalism, which support and legitimize right in isolation and expunged.
Within the ideology of rationalism, all reality can be fully and objectively understood by pure reason. Objective knowledge is the exclusive domain of science, whose methods and theories are purged of subjectivity. Comprehensible is considered a phenomenon when it can be isolated and controlled. Within the ideology of instrumentalism, it's all turned upside down. Is pragmatic instrumentalism. What is real can be controlled. What is real can be completely controlled. The natural function of reason is oppression. Objectivity is denied. These divisibility ideologies maintain the authority and effectiveness of reason through it, the domain of the order provides both the means and the mystification of social control. The regime of the order was thus supported precisely by those who seek to dominate the people and things, support generously rewarded. The regime of the order has been supported also by those hoping to use it as a defense against domination, and this is a tragic mistake.
Of course, neither rationalism and instrumentalism are true, they are separate but mutually supportive explanations of the same process: the subjugation of reason as an instrument of domination. The reason becomes technology. As reason is expunged, and that over which it operates must be debugged. The object of reason is information. The unhindered use of instrumental reason requires an environment of pure information. The maximum amount of information is separate from its social and natural environments, most are operating space of instrumental reason.
Computers are mechanical implements of instrumental reason, store, transmit and manipulate information purified, are information filters. As computers invade the world, create widespread areas of information redacted, thus widening the scope of all forms of instrumental reason. Within this area, computers are powerful resources for control. Instrumentalism enhances the power of computers to legitimize the debugging information, confirm the instrumentalism computers to demonstrate the effectiveness of instrumental reason. They are also deeply involved with rationalism. The reason redacted only cares about how things work, these machines are ideal for this simulator. Since computers are the most effective instrument of reason redacted, have become a model for the theory and the scientific method in a self-reinforcing process. As filtered information, create a reality that can actually model and control. Thus, computers are creatures of the underlying processes of order and order ideologies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment