Jun 122011
 

I’ve been watching the Adam Curtis series “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” on iPlayer this evening – have just had to break off at the beginning of the second episode in the interests of familial peace.  I hope to catch the rest of it all before tomorrow’s cut-off date at 10 pm.  As I just pointed out on Twitter:

Just seen first episode of AWOBMOLG. Now feel I’ve been a very stupid thoughtsmith.

We’ve been well and truly had by the financial elites, haven’t we?  Lordy, how stupid we all really have been.

Though at the time of writing I’ve only had a chance to catch the intro, the second episode seems a fascinating second bite at what has clearly become an omnipresent apple.  Wikipedia has the following to say on the thesis of this episode (the bold is mine):

This episode investigates how machine ideas such as cybernetics and systems theory were applied to natural ecosystems, and how this relates to the false idea that there is a balance of nature. Cybernetics has been applied to human beings to attempt to build societies without central control, self organising networks built of people, based on a fantasy view of nature.

And yet, interestingly, in their machine-like manifestations, those self organising networks the Randians of Silicon Valley have dreamed about for so long do actually work these days – at least in their most primitive manifestations: that is to say, as machines communicating with other machines.  I can’t remember whether it was Roland Barthes who used the unicorn as an example of how human beings can create their very own intangible realities out of components of the real world – but in this case, it seems to me that in the machines Curtis so berates them for the Randians have manufactured latterday unicorns.  They have taken parts of the real world and built absolutely tangible fantasies.  An even more splendid oxymoron than the first.

The problem, as Curtis rightly points out, is that such tangible fantasies have a wild and fearful habit of overtaking their (tautologically) real realities.  And I’m very afraid that what’s happening at the moment in our economic and political stratospheres is a process of tremendous self-denial which, in a very short timeframe, will end up leading to our total downfall.  All these brilliant, bright and breezy thinkers – the real revolutionaries of the 21st century; those who, through their brilliance, have brought first the Asian and now the Western economies to their knees – will essentially be thinking:

“Hey, these ideas are just too good for us to give up on them just because millions of ordinary folk have suffered their inexact implementation.  Why not let’s try all over again!  But this time, let’s give them due and proper space to flourish exactly as they were meant to …”

And where have we heard that sort of language before.

All I can say is beware the latterday unicorns of the gloriously clever Randians who control and define our beloved web.  A fantasy, however workable, can lead to other fantasies of a quite different nature – and there may come a time when the hubris of the singularly original might prevent them from being able to distinguish worldly fact from a very hopeful fiction.

In fact, I may yet be converted to the most traditional pyramid politics of all.

You never know.  Stranger things have happened.

On the other hand, I might decide to up sticks and invent my own …

Jun 122011
 

I’ve just watched “The King’s Speech” on DVD.  The first time I’ve seen the film in fact.  If you haven’t and plan at some time to do so (I can highly recommend it), I defy you not to blub at least once during its beautifully paced 113 minutes.  It does, incidentally, involve an unqualified Antipodean speech therapist who helps out the future King of England to overcome a terror of public speaking.

Back on the Internet, Luke Bozier just tweeted the following phrase – picking up on a piece by Fraser Nelson, writing in the Spectator:

‘The (Labour) party needs a psychiatrist, not a strategist.’. Always love Fraser Nelson. And not just for the accent. http://bit.ly/lvxDyr

There’s a good deal to be said for this.  We might even want to extend it to all organisations and workforces where dysfunctional behaviours are currently causing disrespect and waste.  Of which there are rather too many for comfort.  Not sure it’s going to be possible, mind, in a world where private bureaucracy is burgeoning and health systems worldwide prefer pharmaceuticals to expensive talking therapies.

Talking of which, the recent policy consultation process on Refounding Labour (more from myself on how a session made me feel here and more from Paul on what he thinks should really be taking place here) was already quite prescriptive.  Whilst the answer wasn’t exactly 42, someone had clearly done a lot of work on what they were looking to get out of it.  And it did feel a little as if the questions we were led through were couched in terms of conclusions which had already been more than tentatively arrived at.

So in a way, it may be a tick-box exercise.  In a way, it may be a primitive form of therapy.  In a way, it may seem designed to heal.  In a way, it’s probably destined to fail.  What the Labour Party prizes, above all, is its heroes.  Even more, perhaps, than those on the right amongst us.  It spends so much time searching its soul and saying its analyses are based on solid fact and evidence – but the leap of faith that being a socialist requires is both substantial and honourable at the same time.  As well as – primarily – primal. There’s nothing stronger than the emotion to be experienced when witnessing injustice by those with the power to cover it up.

If I find it difficult to believe in God, it’s perhaps because I’m a socialist.  And it’s not that my being a socialist prevents me in a theological sense from believing in God.  It’s that my being a socialist makes believing in God quite unnecessary for my peace of mind.  In a way, socialism is a faith – just as Roman Catholicism and Protestantism before it.  I have my existential support in my socialist philosophies – even as you have your existential support in your religious ones.

Fraser Nelson may be on the ball when he says that right now Labour needs a psychiatrist more than a strategist.  But perhaps he would be even more accurate if he said we all needed a Father Confessor – essentially to heal our aforementioned communal soul.

Meanwhile, David Miliband is right to declare that:

“I have moved on from the leadership election and so should everyone else. Ed won, I stand fully behind him and so should everyone else. I called for unity last October and I repeat that now. We all have our part to play in supporting Ed and the front bench team to ensure we expose this government for its reckless policies that are damaging the country. The rest is soap opera of which I want no part and the public have no interest.”

He is also right in declaring it a soap opera.  Where he is wrong, however, is in assuming the public has no interest in soap opera.

For it most evidently does.  And “The King’s Speech” is a quite superior example amongst many products these days which serves as living proof of this.

The Spanish have a saying for what we really should be getting up to: “Hablando se entiende la gente.”  Loosely translated, this means: “We understand people by speaking to them.”  Pretty simple really.

Even if there’s not much of it about any more.

So less consultation folks.  And a bit more real and equal dialogue.

How about it?

Jun 122011
 

This is interesting.  The New York Times describes it in the following way:

The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks.

It goes on to describe the technologies thus:

Some projects involve technology that the United States is developing; others pull together tools that have already been created by hackers in a so-called liberation-technology movement sweeping the globe.

As I previously pointed out, whilst the robustness of the Internet on a global and statistical scale is not in doubt, the impact and utility it can have at a discrete local level is rather more prone to interference.  As well as, it must be said, identification.

Not what you need when you’re looking to undermine a “repressive” government.

Now although the New York Times – and presumably its sources in the US government – are describing the landscape in question as “liberation technology”, it surely cannot be wrong to refine the terminology in the following way: rather than “liberation technology”, we should be saying “communication theology”.  For when we aim to uncork the genie’s bottle once again – as the American military first did when it created the underlying technologies behind the Internet – we are unleashing not a neutral measure of what freedom means for human beings as a species but, instead, a highly political, highly politicised, understanding of how we should organise our societies.

Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not saying the Americans are wrong in doing what they propose.  On the other hand, I am pointing out that just as the Internet as we have come to know it is the crowdsourced beacon of free expression par excellence, except when dictators and assorted folk decide to shut it down, so this new portable Internet may lead to quite undesirable results in the hands of those selfsame folk.

The story of the sword and the shield was never more apt than now.

So do we really know what we are doing?

And are we sure it won’t be turned against us?
____________________

Update to this post: some thoughtful further reading from James Firth can be found here on this very subject.  Well worth your time.