In this article, Mark Winokur is illustrating, through the aid of Michael Foucault’s arguments on panopticism, his ideas on the ambiguity of the Internet, in specific, the distribution of power within the Internet and it’s relation to panopticism. He opens with a statement ultimately saying that the effects of the Internet are unclear in whether they are positive or negative, but using the arguments of the French philosopher to dissect the Internet down to power, surveillance and totality. This is a great article to look at, as it ties into previous discussions on Biopower, and it’s effectiveness within a society, versus Sovereign power, which is an important issue when discussing the Internet and it’s effect on our now ‘Network Society’. Winokur argues his panoptic view versus a utopic view of the Internet, by categorizing his thoughts in four subsections: The Gaze, Space, Authority, and Totality.
Winokur argues that the Internet instills a notion within its users of being watched all the time, and that this “gaze” is stronger and more prevalent than other forms of media, such as films and television. He describes this gaze as having bi-directionality, in that “the computer monitor observes us as we observe it” and “the monitor seems genuinely reciprocal in a manner to which neither television nor movies can aspire”. He relates this idea of being constantly observed to panopticism, as individuals are policing themselves online, as they know there is always a chance they could be under surveillance.
When discussing space within the Internet, Winokur focuses more on the idea that the Internet could be anywhere in terms of a virtual sense, rather than a geographical sense. In terms of space, the Internet is dispersed like power is dispersed in a panopticon. However, he argues that this space can be both multiple and homogenous in that it can be used anywhere, especially with the advancement of communication technologies such as Smartphones, but at the same time, the websites people visit are often the same. Popular websites, such as Facebook, YouTube, or MySpace, are visited most frequently which gives the internet that homogenous attribute. I disagree with Winokur’s point here about the spatial aspect of the Internet being dispersed as power is in panopticism. Later I will discuss in more detail how I feel this point relates to the idea of totality within the Internet system, and how we are limited to the spatial disbanding of power based on our accessibility, our infrastructure, and social status as well.
As for authority, Winokur argues that creating surveillance software promotes the idea that the user is always being watched or could be at any given time, and that because of this, individuals may take on the responsibility themselves to police others on the Net.
“Anti-virus software, spyware, anti-spyware, anti-pornography software, firewalls, Trojans, anti-Trojan programs, worms, data-erasure programs, and other forms of self-surveillance -- software more or less readily available to all Internet citizens -- can infiltrate other computers or monitor the penetrations into one's own computer; it is possible to locate the source of the attack, thus monitoring the activities and strategies of individuals and corporations.”
This dispersion of authority brings key focus on the relationship between those who are in the centre and those who are being watched, when relating the Internet to a panoptic system.
Lastly, when discussing totality, Winokur argues that virtual reality is itself a version of totality, as the ability to have access to the Internet all the time, and it’s portable nature now with Smartphones and PDA’s, gives the Internet a totalizing nature. As discussed in the forum, I agree with Winokur’s point that the Internet is totalizing, but only when people are online. And although the accessibility of the Net is growing with each passing day, there are still many places, both foreign and domestic that render us “offline” no matter what technology we may possess. In this sense, the Internet is not totalizing, as you have to, first of all, have access to the Internet, and secondly be online in order to be fully enveloped within this technology. I do agree with his argument that the Internet is the most totalizing of media so far, beating our films and television, but I am not convinced that the Internet is the be-all end-all of totality within our society.
The aspect of the article that lost me was the idea of discourse and code. This may stem from my ignorance of how this technology works at a very basic form, however I am left with this question to throw out to the masses: If code is invisible, but what it creates (the Internet) is not, then what is meant by Winokur’s argument that the Internet creates what it defines, unlike language?
I found a few websites on Michael Foucault that helped me get a better understanding of who he is and what he is about. Thanks for reading, and feel free to check out the sites listed below.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Michael Foucault." 17 September 2008. 10 Feb 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/>.
Clare O'Farrell. "Michael Foucault." Key Concepts. 30 October 2010. . 10 Feb 2011. <http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/index.html>.
Eric Oakley. "Michel Foucault: The Panopticon and Panopticism." Michel Foucault: The Panopticon and Panopticism. 14 November 2005. Associated Content. 10 Feb 2011. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/13822/michel_foucault_the_panopticon_and.html?cat=37>.
Winokur's argument opposes and compares Internet code with language. Internet code is a language itself that is international, but as we have discussed in class it is influenced by certain countries. As noted in the article, for economic reasons, the United States employs companies in India to create Internet software and code. Where this software originates from has sociocultural implications on the code (he uses post-colonial Indian interfaces as an example). Language, like code has sociocultural implications or discourses that in some cases are impossible to translate from one language to another.
ReplyDeleteHowever he separates language from code in what they create and define. Both language and code are invisible. As I speak you cannot see visible replications of the words escape from my mouth. On the other hand code creates visual replications of what it describes on the Internet. When we describe an ideology using language it is invisible, one has to imagine it in their minds but with code the ideology is transmitted on the screen to become a material idea that we can grasp. It takes the work out of imagination and leads to Winnokur's prediction-that the internet will permit a connection between the signifier and signified through code, changing the way in which we think of language.
On another note, different codes function together, there may be a page with html and java flash working together to produce what we see on the screen. Therefore, codes are heterogeneous in their ability to work together. I would argue that like codes languages function in a heterogeneous manner as well using Quebec and many of its citizens mixing of French and English. This is exemplified in the popular movie Bon Cop Bad Cop and how we employ words from other languages into our own on a regular basis. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this comparison, I find when I try to grasp these philosophical concepts i over generalize!
Bon Cop Bad Cop trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TwhiLUCOwE
-Ashley Van Alstyne
Very well put Ashley. I really appreciate that. I have heard good reviews of that movie, actually - though I have never seen it. I'm not one to say whether or not you over generalized, but you put it into terms that made sense to me, so I say you did great! :)
ReplyDeleteI'll just add that Winokur isn't saying code creates what it defines unlike language; he's saying it is like language in this respect. However, it is different from language because, as Ashley explained so well, these effects are visible.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the roles between language and code are reversed. Language consists of visible signifiers (words) that represent invisible concepts (ideologies). Code, except to programmers, is itself invisible, but it represents visible products (the page you view). From this, Winokur concludes that the Internet is "both signifier and the signifed", because by the visible page is the evidence of the code, which in turn defined the page.
Both Ashley and Ben have answered your question quite well. What I would add regards your description of the dispersedness of power; it is important to recall that, because power is dispersed, it means that there is very little difference between who is watched and who is not –– there is little difference between the two because at the same time as we police others, those others could be policing our behaviours as well (such as through the use of the 'like' button on Facebook).
ReplyDelete