Like Nakamura, Chun often bogged me down with the race factor (as well as the chapter on Neuromancer and Ghost in the Shell), but overall, I found the second half of _Control and Freedom_very interesting--and paranoi-ing!
"Paranoia increases as visibility decreases"--so states Chun on p. 268. This is hardly a surprise in today's technological world. What we can't see makes us edgy. Where does our credit card information go when we make a purchase? Who is reading our blogs? Who's watching our webcam feeds? These are all questions that Chun ties into her notion of control-freedom--"the rise of a generalized paranoia" (250).
I can see where Chun comes from in her arguments, and I think there's a lot of truth to what Lacan terms "paranoid knowledge" (251). Simply put, "the Internet is of interest to us because it is the object of another's desire" (251). Chun's comments on the "Anthem" commercials further shed some light ("hurry up and get online because all these other people already want or have it" (250)). I was always behind most of my friends in terms of getting the latest technology. I was one of the last ones to have Internet at home, as well as one of the last ones to own a cell phone (I was however, the first to get an iPod!). I felt out of touch at times, or at least not able to be in touch to the extent they were. I also wondered if I was at a disadvantage in school by not having the Internet available at home while I was doing homework. However, I feel that I'm caught up, and in many cases (taking this class for example), ahead.
If there is truth to paranoid knowledge, then it's a scary thought that the more people who have access, the greater the paranoia will become in other populations. But here's my question--if the Internet does eventually become so widespread that everyone has access (chips in people's heads, I don't know), will that erase the paranoia? Or, will the control systems (or lackthereof) shift and begin to give rise to a new form of paranoia?
Sometimes I try not to look at ideas such as Chun's too seriously. Life develops in certain ways that we can't control, so sometimes we have to make the best of things as they come along. And I think the human race has been doing that for quite some time now, and not just in the age of fiber optics.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Jon,
I too was bogged down by the chapter on Neuromancer and Ghost in the Shell. I don’t know about you, but not having read the books referenced in this chapter, I found it difficult to follow along.
The quote from page 250 about the Anthem commercial(hurry up and get online) stood out to me as well. I’ve certainly felt that way with the latest technological developments, especially considering our chosen profession: tech writer.
I think you offer a good question at the end of your post about whether universal access will erase paranoia. My guess is probably not: new technologies will constantly improve access, providing an ever-increasing potential for better/faster communication, production and interaction, and since there will always be technological haves and have nots, there will always exist some level of paranoia. (or maybe I’m just being paranoid :)
Jon, you're one step ahead of me. I tried to muddle through the Neuromancer/Ghost in the Shell chapter, but got so confused that I gave up.
Like Matt, I was intrigued by your question on access and paranoia. (But chips in our heads? Yikes! That's a little too Conspiracy Theory for my liking!) If - and it's a big if - we all can get access to the Internet through some means (chips or not chips), I think that it will ultimately cause an increase in monitoring, or at least an increase in the desire to monitor. The idea that literally every person has access to the Internet is an inticing thing for someone who has the desire to monitor/control. So as a citizen who knows that all of my peers around the world are accessible through the Internet, and knowing that there are people who could potentially use/misuse/abuse the ability to monitor, my paranoia levels would go through the roof.
But then again, maybe I've watched Conspiracy Theory one too many times.
Correction: Wow, I apparently can't spell. I meant *enticing.
Yeah, I think that one type of paranoia (the "hurry up and get online" variety) might diminish with more users. There are several paranoias (you mean you didn't know about #s 2340 and 5635!?!): falling behind, monitoring, disinformation - all types of exclusion I suppose, which fits with the general agoraphobia argument that Chun presents.
The last paragraph in your post makes me a bit sad/defeated, though. How can we resist control? Play? Misuse? Appropriation and transformation?
I thought Chun placed too much emphasis on paranoia through consumerism. Marketers have been using that tactic ever since the very first advertisement. It's a part of the schtick -- making the consumer feel left behind if he/she doesn't have the latest and greatest. This "paranoia" defintely isn't limited to being a technology thing.
Post a Comment