Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 07:39:41 +0800 (SGT)
From: Ho Tzu Yin <morpheus-AT-po.pacific.net.sg>
Subject: Re: "evaluation"


[Hello]

>I think you're exaggerating the determinism inherent in the 
>"technological form" of the Internet. You will probably agree that 
>the Internet represents a remarkable expansion of interactive 
>possibilities compared to television and radio (even face-to-face, I 
>would argue). Why would you want to a deem these possibilities 
>repressive per se when you're not even sure what it might lead to. It 
>strikes me as a rather despairing attitude.

I am, of course not to deny the Internet as leading the charge of media
convergence.  But repression, in a capitalistic mode of economy does not
take the form of active suppression.  Chomsky remarked that agitprop is more
prevalent in capitalist-democracy than the force-reliant authoritarian
regime.  Well, already we can see the tentacles of the multi-national
companies[whose interests are the interests of many states] encircling the
net.  Already the sphere of deviance is created for the net.  The net
provides just one more [virtual] space for the power relations to arrange
the conditions of our discourse. An Internet ineviatbly spawns an Undernet.
Again, the powers that be can consciously or unconsciously [drawing upon the
Gramscian idea of hegemony]can redefine what is moral, what is natural. I
realize that Net promises to be a route of emancipation for many.  But I
must say that multi-media is a sword that cuts both ways.  And it never cuts
both ways equally.  Inevitably, certain conditions will change.  We can
communicate in ways like we have never done before.  But the institutions,
the class, the stratification, or rather the cultural logic which have
produced the Net itself, the unequal double-edged sword [the medium], will
not only develop new methods of control [which I understand is your
stand...that control is purely an external force, that taints the neutrality
of mediums]-but is always already 'prepared' for new methods of control.
Technological advance [at least on a large scale]  is always subjugated by
profit motives, strategic motives by the status quo.  While Internet offers
new ranges of interactivity, remember that this interactivity can be used
for information as well as disinformation.  While well-intentioned,
small-scaled groups of activists may labour to disseminate worthy ideals,
the illusions of consumptions are expanding at a higher exponential weight -
they have the strength of capital, of expertise, of specialists, they have
the 'weight' of the Normal, the appetizing, the values they embody, their
mode of operation, their products, their sales-pitch, their logic will
nevertheless go down smoother with the mass consumer than the words of an
activist, whose voice, if not forcefully excluded [censored, such as in my
state] then lost in a general semantic,cognitive noise.  [to the average
consumer, Marxism died with the demise of the Eastern Bloc].  My pessimism,
as you call it, arises from my fear that the sword has already been swung.
But I am not pessimistic.  I believe that my attempt to learn and
disseminate whatever I learn in face of my doubts is testament to my
optimism.  Sounds fallacious...my pessimism proving my optimism...while not
exactly a Kierkegaardian "leap into the absurd", at least to me an ethical
duty, which Jean-Francois Lyotard attributes to the Kantian notion of the
Sublime, beyond comprehension of fixed systems of thought. I mean, if you
look at Singapore, there is really no logical, cognitive purpose in
believing that the tide of normalised, consumption- preoccupied thought will
ever turn.  And remember, strategies of control are of many forms.  And are
played out at many different levels.  The question of ownership can now be
viewed in terms of accessibility.  The information/media-acessibilty gap on
a intra-national level, and at a trans-national level.  While technology
accelerates for the capital rich core [developed] nations, the peripheral
nations struggle to cover the lost grounds of the Enlightenment, of Western
Modernity, not because the Western world represents an ideal, but because
the peripheral is forced to play the game, just like Marxism in the Eastern
Bloc mutated into its fascistic mode [in part] [or mainly] [who knows] due
to the constant threat of war epitomized by the "free-world', plunging them
into an unnecessary race for arms. My point is that we must always consider
new formations in its total context.  The Internet does not exist in a power
vacuum. But as Foucault points out, much of the exact outcome of
epistemological breaks [and I think that if you consider Postmodernism as a
condition, that warrants a break]still rely upon an aleatory throw of the
dice...but the results almost always favour directly or indirectly those in
power.  But I hope, in the face of hope [in the face of postmodernistic
incredulity] that these visions of a "global village" will not prove to be
merely what Fedric Jameson calls "senseless euphoria" thats masks the loss
of affect. Well, I'm sorry the mail is so long...I'm on holidays...that's
why.               

>What? Subsuming a form "into a compatible matrix" (for capitalism) 
>must surely be considered a destruction, or? 
Well, it may be a fault of mine that I express my thoughts in a manner
inconduicive to full understanding.  But I don't think that amounts to
destruction.  Not at all.  Assmilation....affiliation.... This has the signs
of the beginning of a language game if I dwell too much on it.
 
>The public sphere of Singapore (and most of Asia, I would think) is 
>clearly a hoax. Believe me, it's not much better here where the 
>public sphere is a giant simulacrum (a very sophisticated hoax that 
>seduces people into thinking it's real).
>
>However, since we're discussing the Internet: Wouldn't you think of 
>the Internet as a possible improvement of the pathetic state of the 
>"real" public sphere?
>
Well, I guessed I already answered all these above...but I would just like
to re-emphasize the dangers of pining too much hope on Internet creating a
"Public Sphere".  We must also be aware of the illusion of a created,
manufactured "public sphere".  Or a "public sphere" that exists only through
a shift in the modalities of disciplinary technologies.  But most of all, I
would like to end of by saying that much of whether a public sphere can be
created will be up to our generation.  Though the dice is loaded, I, for
one, will still take a chance.  If you believe in Baudrillard, then there's
really not much to lose [since we already lost the real]

Anyway, hope I don't sound too quixotic...fighting [pathetically] a virtual
windmill that I mistake for a dragon.