Untitled - socium.ge

32 Manuel Castellsterms. As for the capitalist class, it does have some power, but not the power,as it is highly dependent on both the autonomous dynamics of global marketsand on the decisions of governments in terms of regulations and policies.Finally, governments themselves are linked in complex networks of imperfectglobal governance, indirectly submitted to their citizenry, and periodicallyassailed by social movements and expressions of resistance that do not recedeeasily in the back room of the end of history (Nye and Donahue, 2000). So,perhaps the question of power, as traditionally formulated, does not makesense in the network society. But other forms of domination and determinationare critical in shaping people’s lives against their will. Let me elaborate.In a world of networks, the ability to exercise control over others dependson two basic mechanisms: the ability to program/reprogram the network(s) interms of the goals assigned to the network; and the ability to connect differentnetworks to ensure their cooperation by sharing common goals and increasingresources. I call the holders of the first power position the “programmers,” andthe holders of the second power position the “switchers.” It is important toconsider that these programmers and switchers are certainly social actors, butare not necessarily identified with one particular group or individual. Moreoften than not these mechanisms operate at the interface between varioussocial actors, defined in terms of their position in the social structure, and inthe organizational framework of society. Thus, I suggest that the power-holdersare networks themselves. Not abstract, unconscious networks, notautomata: they are humans organized around their projects and interests. Butthey are not single actors (individuals, groups, classes, religious leaders, politicalleaders) since the exercise of power in the network society requires acomplex set of joint action that goes beyond alliances to become a new formof subject, akin to what Bruno Latour (1993) brilliantly theorized as theaction-network actor.Let us examine the workings of these two mechanisms. The capacity toprogram the goals of the network (as well as the reprogramming capacity) is,of course, decisive because, once programmed, the network will perform efficientlyand reconfigure itself in terms of structure and nodes to achieve itsgoals. ICT-powered, global/local networks are efficient machines; they haveno values other than performing what they are ordered to do. They kill or kiss– nothing personal. How actors of different kinds achieve the programming ofthe network is a process specific to each network. It is not the same in globalfinance as it is in military power, in scientific research, in organized crime, orin professional sports. However, all these networks do have something incommon: ideas, visions, projects generate the programs. These are culturalmaterials. In the network society, culture is by and large embedded in theprocesses of communication, in the electronic hypertext, with the media andthe Internet at its core. So, ideas may be generated from a variety of origins,