soc355 long essay.doc
DESCRIPTION
Cultures in DispossessionTRANSCRIPT
Finding True North: A Sociological Journey in Late Capitalism
Introduction
Through the development of Western science and technology people around the world
are more and more often coming into contact with each other. Transport and
information connect people more quickly and with greater reach than ever before. What
was previously perceived as isolated and discreet, is now seemingly enmeshed and
interwoven. As Western culture meets head on with other cultures how can we
rationalise this confrontation and to what effect? Through information technology,
Western culture impacts around the globe, but what effect does globalisation have on a
culture which is based socially and politically on a nation-state system (Roosa 2010,
pp1-32)? A recent article in the Australian Financial Review discusses these ideas in
terms of internet censorship and hacking in 'cyber-warfare' between the United States
(US) and China. These two competing ideologies struggle in the global arena over
definitions and boundaries about what constitutes 'reality' and how we ought to live
(Segal 2012, pp1-4). In this sense then, has Western science, which is premised on the
State, in fact freed us from the State? Or by reaching too far have we allowed science to
constrain us? Have we in our own drive for global dominance and power managed to
dispossess ourselves of our own culture and knowledge (Lemonnier 2006, pp79-98)?
The notion that the West is becoming dispossessed of knowledge will be considered in
relation to four theories concerning; enclosure, mobilities, birthright and practices.
Alternately, the question is raised, has Western culture always already anticipated this
type global challenge and critique?
Definitions
Dispossession can be looked at in two ways, at first glance we can perceive it as a sort
of collapse of the fundamental underpinnings of a culture or set of beliefs.
Dispossession, in this sense, seems to suggest more than a drift from centre or a
challenge of boundaries but rather imply a complete destruction, not only of the frames
which support culture but of the entire culture itself. Effectively, the death of a culture,
never to be resurrected and equated with genocide (Lyotard 2004, pp123-128).
1
However, on closer examination we could question whether dispossession in this way is
even possible or whether in fact culture constantly reforms over time, mutating,
adapting, blending and assimilating, constantly living and unable to die, 'playing dead'
(Moore 2008, ppxi-xv). Under the conditions of intense globalisation evidenced during
the late 20th century the basis of Western knowledge certainly does seem to have become
significantly challenged. Much research cites a dumbing down of society, a rejection of
traditional institutions, a loss of meaning and shallowness in our lives (Orwell 1946).
Yet the question remains, are 'these times' unprecedented or simply part of a larger
cycle? Is our current experience of seeming dispossession simply part of a larger
process of possession?
Karl Marx discusses these ideas through notions of enclosure which he refers to as
'dialectical materialism'. His works can be interpreted as a statement about how
meaning varies considerably depending on what is included and what is hidden within a
particular data set, thus we focus on what is included and disregard the possibility of
alternatives. Effectively, the sum of what has been included we take as the whole and
we construct an arrangement of meaning and logic that ties all pieces neatly together.
These are the boundaries that we 'rope off', the completion of the data set, in effect, the
enclosure (Marx and Engels 1932). But when hidden external phenomena meet head on
with this arrangement meaning and logic are challenged and boundaries need to be
renegotiated. Antonio Gramsci writes about this continual pressure from external
phenomena and rearrangement of enclosures as a form of mobility. Over time, any data
set is going to be challenged by those who are not included and needs to be flexible
enough to withstand change if it is to survive. As such, mobility can be seen as a
mechanism or counterpart ensuring the survival of the enclosure, but for the creation of
every new enclosure there is a continual and corresponding destruction of a previous
enclosure. In this way, there is a struggle between the perspectives and positions of
enclosure and mobility because mobility can't really survive without enclosure either
and they struggle over which perspective should take precedence, which perspective
should be the point of reference and come first. In this way, the notion of birthright
implies ultimate priority and power to 'define', and is itself continuously both the origin
and the resolution of this dynamic for an instantaneous moment in time. And through
this struggle life itself is continually reproduced back and forth through this successive
toggling continuum or wave cycle between enclosure and mobility. Henceforth, larger
2
cycles are both built into and surround this dynamic of reproduction and are perpetuated
through social practices. Each generation resists the 'old' and discovers the 'new' and is
seated within larger frames of the human life span, the 'system' always already
anticipating these ebbs and flows (Gramsci 1933, pp1-4). Practices are what ensure the
longevity of these cycles and the intervals in between. These become embedded and
naturalised through customs, rituals, norms, morals, ethics and the like, sometimes
referred to as 'regimes of representation' (Mackie 2012, pp116-117).
Media Article
An interval of this cycle has been captured in a recent media article in the Australian
Financial Review which outlines the struggle over such practices between China and the
US. Each struggles over how behaviour should be conducted in the online world and
how this relates to and impacts offline life. Each struggles for dominance and the
opportunity to define what 'knowledge' should include and what the value of that
knowledge should be. China's efforts to preserve its own ideas in the online world seem
in every way only to thwart what makes Western knowledge robust. The article is titled
“China's cyber stealth on new frontline”, is dated 20 March, 2012 and authored by
Adam Segal. It outlines each State's interpretation of survival and morality concerning
online behaviour. The article reports online hacking into highly confidential American
government and military sites plus a myriad of private American based businesses, a
breach which can be traced back to China. Western policymakers want China and the
US to come to an agreement about the rights involved with intellectual property and
want to formalise an agreement or code for online behaviour. US rationale works on the
premise that in time China will become heavily dependent on the cyberworld like the
US experiences today and will benefit from such a code in the future. However, China
views online information as fair game and continues to view the US as an economic and
military threat. Segal states, 'Washington and Beijing won't agree to a broad treaty
governing cyberspace mainly because they hold fundamentally incompatible views on
the internet and society.' (Segal 2012, p1). China states that US attempts at
technological and cultural unity are only an effort to 'lock the rest of the world into the
technology standards dominated by US companies.' (Segal 2012, p2). China wants to
devise its own technology standards and resists what it perceives to be US control
disguised as a sense of 'fair play' and morality (Segal 2012, p2).
3
The US government wants to promote digital structure as privileging neither domestic
nor global, commercial nor non-profit actors. It perceives the internet as open and
based on freedom of speech and human rights. In contrast, China highly regulates what
can be viewed on the internet by its citizens while also regulating the content that
Chinese Government and citizens upload. The Chinese Government desire to innovate
internally and reject global standards, but pressure will mount if they wish to export
products and remain competitive (Segal 2012, pp1-2). Alternately, the Chinese
Government tolerate Chinese citizen's use of the internet for political dissent, a type of
release valve. For example, when a Chinese human rights activist won the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2010 many Chinese hackers damaged the organisation's website in retribution
for perceived Western interference. Perhaps in a similar vein, the US should look
inwardly and rather than attempting to govern globally should focus on its own security.
The US Government could provide incentives for private security companies to invest
more heavily in research and upgrades to combat hackers (Segal 2012, p2). Likewise
security companies could deploy systems to 'lure attackers into so-called honeypots,
decoy computers sometimes baited with fake data.' (Segal 2012, p3). Further, the US
could, through legitimate channels, impose trade sanctions on China through the World
Trade Organisation if it won't cease attacks, but espionage is not illegal in international
law so the US has to be measured in its response. The law is fairly clear on State
behaviour but blurs when it comes to private companies. As such, the US would have
more scope mounting an offensive on personal or individual computers. For example,
viruses known as 'zero-days' could be used to penetrate Chinese data (Segal 2012, p3).
But this could simply go back and forth indefinitely and while the US defends itself it
also needs to look toward a solution with the Chinese Government and aim for open
channels of dialogue. Both sides have common threats and irritants online which could
instead become a focus. Segal gives the example of online con artists who trick people
into disclosing their bank details, additionally, the high levels of email spam circulating.
Meanwhile the US could rally other countries to support the formation of a new set of
online norms putting pressure on China to conform. Additionally, exposing China's
hacking crimes on an international stage may threaten its long term relations with other
countries and therefore entice China to conform. Segal states that the US Government
needs to be proactive in its endeavour to stop cybercrime and to try to coordinate and
4
lead other countries firmly furnishing a new set of practices in the online world before
China does (Segal 2012, pp3-4).
How the theories elucidate the article
If we refer back to the differing ways that we can view dispossession in light of this
article by Segal, we can see that to view dispossession as simply loss or destruction is to
view only from one side. When we look in this way, we can only see in the struggle
between China and the US a winner and a loser where only one or the other can prevail.
Often the discourse here is of everybody benefiting, but this would be within a smaller
enclosure and under the conditions of the winning ideology. In effect, the Chinese
perspective is baited by the promise of inclusion and yet at the same time is consumed
by the West. As such, indigenous Chinese culture is excluded in this process of
inclusion (Chomsky 2002, pp3-31). The Chinese are aware of this contradiction, hence
their hesitation to comply with Western devised online codes of practice. And while we
can view relations between the two as a dichotomy or by what Marx refers to as a class
within itself, we could also perceive this struggle through a dialectic, rather a class for
itself, and envisage how both can live within a constant state of negotiation. Although
one side's loss is the other side's gain in this instance, a space is created for both sides at
all times to some degree. Rather than just two poles everything in between is included,
every act of negotiation (Marx & Engels 1932). In this way, the US allowing China and
the US to work on two separate playing fields on two separate levels, the US perceiving
they are on the dominant and higher level, is not only more fair to China but also
ensures its ongoing possession. Ultimately, this is an aspect of democracy and the
Western way, but by possessing ourselves we also allow China to possess itself
(Gramsci 1933, pp1-4). From a Western perspective, by being true to ourselves and
trying our hardest not only do we honour our adversary but we also allow them to be
their best. In this respect, we all rise, but we have to challenge each other first, when we
do otherwise everyone it seems falls into a state of dispossession (Rachels 1993, pp117-
126). In this way, we can see that on both levels the US will prevail, it can't lose. When
the US includes China within its enclosure it excludes China of its culture and US
culture dominates alone, and when the US excludes China and allows it its autonomy
the US wins on moral high-ground with both sides included (Segal 2012, pp1-4).
Enclosure is evidently intimately connected with dispossession and operates as a form
5
of reflected or contradictory power, in some instances its power in fact deriving from its
seeming negation.
However, this process does not occur without effect also on Western culture, for the US
too is impacted by its relations with China. While the US is including and excluding
China, China acts as an external phenomena complicating currently accepted Western
norms. China's challenge and critique of what seems to us both natural and realised
disrupts our complacency. We struggle with the disparities that arise from a comparison
between the two cultures and find that many Chinese ideas don't commensurate with the
Western 'system' of values, such as online hacking. We begin to feel defensive and
doubt our beliefs, and to sense that perhaps there is something outside of the 'set' which
was previously our entire world, something we hadn't considered. But this is a
continual process of reinvention and renewal, re-framing, equating and rationalising
new information to formulate a new and stable whole. And while it may seem more
convenient and comfortable to stagnate at times, we need this interference in order to
survive and to feel a drive for change. We can see that while the US has a voice in this
scenario, China does also, there is an input from both sides (Jackson 2009, pp357-385).
Segal states in the media piece that the Chinese heavily regulate information that is
viewed and downloaded by its citizens but allows the internet to be used, often through
hacking, to voice political dissent 'and as a sort of release valve for frustrated citizens.'
(Segal 2012, p2). This is what challenges, stimulates and motivates us and so
perpetuates change. Participation in this situation will be vital, engaged and committed
on both sides alternating back and forth with ideas and opinions while also alternating
back and forth between frames of knowledge. Each will provide feedback to the other
and enable self-reflection on both sides. Within this framework, Western knowledge
operates ably, anticipating such critique and continually readjusting (Hinman 2003,
pp135-156). Challenge only makes us more resolute, more deliberate and more aware
while also may help resolve anomalies and vulnerabilities within our own social sphere
(Chomsky 2002, pp3-31).
Ultimately though, this struggle between enclosure and mobility isn't without some sort
of anticipated effect. Struggle occurs in an effort to gain a dominant position and under
conditions of a usual flow, external phenomena can be easily handled but when that
flow becomes too rapid the system cannot sufficiently regenerate. Under these
6
circumstances the mechanisms of the system become fragile and exposed. We start to
lose trust in our system and our knowledge, perhaps we have become too aware of our
mechanics before we have had time to rationalise or understand them. All we can see is
contradiction and confusion. The logic of our enclosure is in direct contradiction to the
logic of our mobility, meaning becomes negligible and time begins to slow down.
Without meaning we become trapped in a single moment and grind to a halt. It's almost
like time itself has slowed down and jarred stop within a 'moment', the moment of zero,
the instantaneous transition between destruction and creation. Time has stopped within
time. Effectively, the old has been destroyed and the new is yet to be created (Lyotard
2004, pp123-138). Everything seems adrift and stagnant, and all that can be seen
ironically is mobility, the contradiction continues, and there is no sight of enclosure.
Although this seems like a space without place, what really has been created and now
dominates is the external phenomena, the exclusion has become the inclusion and vice
versa. The two positions have been swapped yet this event is largely obfuscated.
Western knowledge is both upside down and inside out (Baudrillard 1988, pp166-182).
The question remains, is this process the dispossession of Western knowledge as we
know it? Has Western knowledge broken down? At first glance it would appear such a
confrontation has caused a collapse of our entire system. It can't be created or renewed
because it has already now been created and renewed by mobilities under her terms, but
the flow has become motionless (Laclau 2006, pp107-110).
To add insult to injury, there are pirates at sea trying to seduce mobilities and become
her enclosure, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the situation. The pirates have
lured the West onto a cruise-ship and want to keep everyone at sea so that they can
continually rob them. They have convinced the West to live on the ship and many are
unaware that they have also disabled the ship's engine, nobody could get back to land
even if they wanted to (Chilcote 1990, pp3-19). Has Western knowledge anticipated
this turn of events? It wouldn't seem likely (Cahill 2010). Segal, at this point, suggests
US retreat, he suggests that perhaps the US needs to look inwardly and focus on its own
security and defence rather than concerning itself with global dominance. Segal
discusses implementing domestic US measures to combat hacking, alternatively
distracting hackers with fake US Government sites and fake data. He also mentions US
trade sanctions on China and attacks on Chinese personal computers by implementing
viruses such as 'zero-days' (Segal 2012, pp2-3). It becomes like Waterworld, an
7
artificial water-based landmass and people are slowly forgetting about the States. This
seems like a step backward for the US to engage in this way on Chinese terms and to
respond in kind, but perhaps the US needs to go backward in order to move forward.
They seem to have lost their land, their States and their knowledge, even their ability to
be aware of this situation. They can't get back to land and they can't undo what has
been done (Keller 2001, pp61-62). Those who remember the States reminisce, they are
used to looking down and in front of them, meanwhile the others don't believe them and
think they are dreaming, they are the ones who are used to looking up and over their
shoulder (Marx & Engels 1932). In the distance they can all can see where the ocean
meets the sky, the horizon, everywhere it is horizon and nothing in between. They all
end up in two small separate life rafts, and no matter how much they paddle they never
seem to move, their labour has been rendered futile. The ocean is so flat and they seem
to go round in circles, and it's getting dark. The night is cold and miserable, nobody
speaks, they just stare vacantly at their own reflections in the ocean's dark surface
(Laclau 2006, p105).
But in the morning the sun begins to rise and they feel it's warmth, a hawk circles
above. Perhaps if they look inside themselves they will find the answer. Lo and behold,
an epiphany strikes the group that looks up and behind, they experience the sentience
that everybody must all join together and work equally if they are going to make any
headway. They also decide that they desperately need to formulate some sort of
purpose. As an apparent afterthought, the other group declare that they know what that
purpose can be and remember the navigational tools which they have stowed but weren't
of much use on the cruise-ship. What an amazing turn of events! The holiday ends and
they all set to work (Laclau 2006, pp111-114). The first group state that they will
paddle while the second group navigates. They don't mind paddling and doing all the
manual labour because they imagine they are on a speedboat with an outboard motor,
the wind rushing through their hair. They imagine that each group holds two points of
the compass so to speak, and that if they pool their resources they will all be able to
navigate with some purpose. The navigational group though realise that they actually
have three points of the compass stowed already, and the other group can't even see their
point of the compass but must instead rely on a small southern constellation, sometimes
referred to as Sigma, but which they have named 'Polaris'! The navigators realise that
when they get back to land they will no longer need the life raft to be paddled, they just
8
need to get back to land so that they can get in contact with the Chinese (Fisk 1989,
pp159-162). It is at this stage that Segal mentions the US and Chinese talking together
about their common problems with online vagrants and how these can be dealt with.
Down the track, the US, Segal suggests, could talk similarly with other countries and
start formulating some online norms, gradually putting pressure on Chinese hacking
with international support. The US could then publicly expose Chinese hacking which
may put pressure on some of China's relations with other countries. The articles states
that the US needs to stop cyber-crime and work with other countries to implement a
new set of norms in the online world before China normalises hacking (Segal 2012,
pp3-4).
Conclusion
Astonishingly, the media article seems to end exactly where it began, but we aren't
where we started. The difference is that the channel of communication between the US
and the Chinese is now direct rather than mediated through technology. We can see
how this mediation creates a distortion in the message and separates us from a position
where we can make our own judgements. The message is that it is not the result that is
important, it is the means and we each need to engage and experience the process.
Evidently, we need to understand an idea of dispossession in order to understand and
appreciate what we already have. Likewise, Marx applied this dynamic to the economy
and taught us how to think and act politically both domestically and internationally.
This is what Segal is trying to convey when he writes about US and Chinese relations in
cyberspace, he is showing us that we never lost our knowledge, it just felt like it and we
ended up in a place where we needed some 'internal' dialogue as well as something
phenomenal in order to realise it? We just needed to talk to each other, face to face.
9
REFERENCES:
Baudrillard, J 1988, 'Simulacra and simulations' in Selected Writings, Polity, Cambridge
Cahill, D 2010, Neoliberalism, Crisis and Socially Embedded Economy, accessed
26/7/2012, http://sydney.edu.au/arts/political_economy/downloads/Damien_Cahill.pdf
Chilcote, R 1990, 'Post-Marxism: The Retreat from Class in Latin America', Latin
American Perspectives, Vol. 17, Iss. 3, pp3-24
Chomsky, N 2002, 'A propaganda model' in Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media, Random House, New York
Fisk, M 1989, 'Intellectuals, values and society', Philosophy & Social Criticism, Iss. 15,
pp151-165
Gramsci, A 1933, The Modern Prince: Analysis of Situations, Relations of Force,
accessed 17/8/2012, http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/1933,+Gramsci,
+Analysis+of+Situations,+Relations+of+Force
Hinman, L 2003, 'The ethics of consequences: utilitarianism', in Ethics: A Pluralistic
Approach to Moral Theory, 3rd ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, California
Jackson, P 2009, 'Capitalism and Global Queering: National Markets, Parallels Among
Sexual Cultures, and Multiple Queer Modernities', A Journal of Lesbian and Gay
Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp357-395
Keller, D 2001, 'Deconstruction: fad or philosophy?', Humanitas, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp58-
68
Laclau, E 2006, 'Ideology and post-Marxism', Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 11,
Iss. 2, pp103-114
10
Lemonnier, P 2006, 'The Hunt for Authenticity', The Journal of Pacific History, Vol. 39,
Iss. 1, pp79-98
Lyotard, J F 2004, 'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge', in Drolet, M
(ed.), The Postmodern Reader, London, Routledge
Mackie, V 2012, 'The 'Afghan Girls': Media representations and frames of war',
Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Vol.26, Iss. 1, pp115-131
Marx, K and Engels, F 1932, The German Ideology: Marx/Engels Internet Archive,
accessed 26/7/2012, (marxists.org) 2000
Moore, J D 2008, 'An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists', in
Visions of Culture, AltaMira Press, Lanham
Orwell, G 1946, Politics and the English Language, accessed 1/8/2010,
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
Rachels, J 1993, 'Are there absolute moral rules?' in Elements of Moral Philosophy,
McGraw-Hill, New York
Roosa, S A 2010, 'What is Sustainable Development?' in Sustainable Development
Handbook (2nd ed.), The Fairmont Press, Inc., Lilburn, GA
Segal, A 2012, China's cyber stealth on new frontline, accessed 1/4/2013,
http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/china_cyber_stealth_on_new_frontline_z6YvFR0
mo3uC87zJvCEq6H
11