#11
Both
from within each nation and also internationally, fundamental unity
reflects the actuality of Kapitalismo-sozjietie. The task of the
spectacle is the division of what is global, or total. Its role is
to allot these divisions as specializations between the extremities
of Kapital whose overall function is the control of communication by
means of supervision – a sort of digital panopticon – rendering
the social totality to be a specialized totalitarian unity.
Production
processes in urban conditions bring together the proletarian class
within an atomized population. Control of an atomized population is
maintained via a method of sprawling isolation and separation of mass
communication to create a one way system of overall supervision.
Consumption and production is planned based on the needs of the
proletarian class – the sprawling digital morass – and their
reintegration into the controlled system of supervision.
A
neopeasantry, digitally, artificial in its virtual reality, has been
created by this planned environment of consumption and production –
the snake eating its own tail – this environment of control created
by the conditions of spectacular habitation. A centralized
bureaucratic tendency arises from the fragmentation inherent in the
foundations of this peasantry of virtual reality. Historical time
represses the expression of this peasantry, who, in their totality,
technologically, find their habitation in the landscape of the new
city.
The
overall activity of interconnectivity reveals the tendency of the
social totality to move towards a fragmented dynamic hegemony;
information communications technology such as Google and Facebook are
instrumental in overseeing the social unity of Kapitalismo-sozjietie.
We witness a dispersion of activity due to a widespread use of
information communications technology.
The
planned environment of consumption and production forms part of the
comprehensive ideal of the urban space's constitution. The urban
space's fragmentation reflects the market's segmentation. “{T}oday
the regulation of access to the Internet is increasingly governed by
the workings of market forces and is de
facto
reserved for certain social groups{.}”1
The
urban space becomes splintered by information communications
technology whereas social groups tend to coalesce because of it;
markets form and arise from the cultures of social groups. Social
groups are no longer fixed by urban spaces but remain connected
whilst on-the-move, synchronized by their mobile digital devices.
The development of urban spaces takes on an unintentional,
market-driven logic, moving its sphere of control to private
authorities – the memetic content of information communications
technologies – from public authorities which no longer control or
develop the character of the franchized urban area in the same way
that they once might have done.2
Whether
integration or segregation contribute to the social formation, the
movement of social change now relies on the technological development
of spatial organization and the phenomenon of urban fragmentation
which fractures the spaces of the city and its overall composition.3
Citizen
Anonymous writes to us from 1976 to foretell how the power that
governs us seeks “jurisdiction over all forms of communication,”
- in that case in particular the Quebec government's control of Bell
Canada – and “a say in the policies of national networks.”4
Moves like these are not necessarily constitutional and there is a
distinction between unity and uniformity.
Citizen
Anonymous quotes Quebec's then-communications minister, Denis Hardy,
as saying, “{t}he centralization of decision-making powers in the
name of national unity constitutes without a doubt a very important
factor of dissension and fragmentation.”5
So, with network technologies being the way that they are, unique
and individual voices may arise but because of the nexus of
centralization, the panopticon's dominion, they are kept in check,
whether through monitoring or sedation by overexposure to
information. The overexposure: simulation and simulacra -
“information is directly destructive of meaning ... The loss of
meaning is directly linked to the dissolving, dissuasive action of
information{.}”6
Returning
to The Phoenix newspaper, Hardy appears diplomatic in defence of the
government when he says: “Quebec can only develop culturally by
taking charge of communications within its territories.”7
So, from the vantage point of 1976 we can see the agencies of
control spreading out over network technology to form its own
hegemony. Whilst network technology gives social groups cohesive
mobility it simultaneously allows the urban space to retain its
cultural topography which makes for greater control. Google and
Facebook – both products of the evolution of telecommunications –
can be viewed as having, or at least sharing, federal jurisdiction.
Bringing populations under federal jurisdiction brings together unity
and the economic, socio-cultural reality.
1Fernandez,
V. & Puel, G. (2012) “Socio-technical Systems, Public Space
and Urban Fragmentation.” Urban
Studies,
Vol. 49, No. 6; p.1298.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Citizen
Anonymous² (1976) “Quebec Reveals Wants in Communications.” The
Phoenix, Mar. 26.
5Ibid.
6Baudrillard,
J. (1994) Simulacra & Simulation. Trans. Sheila Faria Glaser.
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press; p.79.
No comments:
Post a Comment