Untitled - socium.ge
Untitled - socium.ge Untitled - socium.ge
Informationalism and the network society 33and linked to specific interests and subcultures (for example, neoclassicaleconomics, religious fundamentalism of various kinds, the cult of individualfreedom, and the like). Yet, they are processed in society through their treatmentin the realm of communication. And, ultimately, they reach theconstituencies of each network on the basis of the exposure of theseconstituencies to the processes of communication. Thus, control of, or influenceon, the apparatuses of communication, the ability to create an effectiveprocess of communication and persuasion along lines that favor the projects ofthe would-be programmers, is the key asset in the ability to program eachnetwork. In other words, the process of communication in society, and theorganizations of this process of communication (often, but not only, themedia), are the key fields in which programming projects are formed, andwhere constituencies are built for these projects. They are the fields of powerin the network society.There is, however, a second source of power, probably more decisive,although this is a matter for research to decide. This is to be found in thecontrollers of the connecting points between various strategic networks: the“switchers;” for instance, the connection between political leadershipnetworks, media networks, scientific and technology networks, and militaryand security networks in asserting a geopolitical strategy. Or the connectionbetween business networks and media networks, by using, for instance, thecontrol of regulatory institutions on behalf of the business interests. Or therelationship between religious networks and political networks to advance areligious agenda in a secular society. Or between academic networks and businessnetworks to exchange knowledge and accreditation for resources for thelearning institutions and jobs for their products (meaning graduates).This is not the old boys’ network. These are specific interface systems thatare set on a relatively stable basis as a way to articulate the operating systemof society beyond the formal self-presentation of institutions and organizations.However, I am not resurrecting the idea of a power elite. There is nopower elite. This is a caricatural image of power in society, whose analyticalvalue is limited to some extreme cases of personalized dictatorship, as inPinochet’s Chile. It is precisely because there is no power elite capable ofkeeping under its control the programming and switching operations of allimportant networks that more subtle, complex, and negotiated systems ofpower enforcement have to be established, so that the dominant networks ofsociety have compatible goals and are able, through the switching processesenacted by actor-networks, to communicate with each other, inducing synergyand limiting contradiction. This is why it is so important that media tycoonsdo not become political leaders, as in the case of Berlusconi in Italy. The morethe switchers are crude expressions of single-purpose domination, the morethe network society suffocates the dynamism and creativity of its multiple
34 Manuel Castellssources of social structuration and social change. Switchers are not persons,but they are made up of persons. They are actors, but made up of networks ofactors, engaging in dynamic interfaces that are specifically operated in eachparticular process of connection. Programmers and switchers are those actorsand networks of actors that, because of their position in the social structure,exercise power in the network society.Power and Counter-power in the Network SocietyProcesses of power-making must be seen from two perspectives: on the onehand, seizing and/or enforcing power; on the other hand, resisting power, onbehalf of interests, values, and projects that are excluded or under-representedin the programs of the networks. Analytically, both processes ultimatelyconfigure power structures through their interaction. But they are distinct.They do, however, operate on the same logic. This means that resistance topower is effected through the same two mechanisms that constitute power inthe network society: the programs of the networks, and the switches betweennetworks. Thus, the collective action of social movements, in their differentforms, aims to introduce new instructions and new codes into the networks’programs. For instance, new instructions in the global financial networksmean that under conditions of extreme poverty debt should be condoned forsome countries, as demanded, and partially obtained, by the JubileeMovement. Another example of a new code in the global financial networks isthe project of evaluating company stocks according to the company’s environmentalethics in the hope that this will ultimately impact on the attitude ofinvestors and shareholders vis-à-vis companies deemed to be bad citizens ofthe planet. Under these conditions, the code of economic calculation shiftsfrom growth potential to sustainable growth potential.More radical reprogramming comes from resistance movements aimed ataltering the fundamental principle of a network – or the kernel of the programcode, to maintain the parallel with software language. For instance, if God’swill must prevail under all conditions (as stated by Christian fundamentalists),the institutional networks that constitute the legal and judicial systems must bereprogrammed, not to follow the political constitution, legal prescriptions, orgovernment decisions (for example, in letting women decide about their ownbodies and pregnancies), but to submit them to the interpretation of God’s willby his earthly bishops. In another example, when the movement for globaljustice claims that trade agreements managed by the World Trade Organizationshould be re-written to include environmental conservation, social rights, andrespect for indigenous minorities, it is acting to modify the programs underwhich the networks of the global economy work.The second mechanism of resistance consists in blocking the switches of
- Page 5 and 6: © Manuel Castells 2004All rights r
- Page 7 and 8: viContentsPART IV SOCIABILITY AND S
- Page 9 and 10: Figures2.1 Technological developmen
- Page 11 and 12: xTables13.4 Physician reports of th
- Page 13 and 14: xiiNotes on contributorsNathaniel B
- Page 15 and 16: xivNotes on contributorsand Browsin
- Page 17 and 18: AcknowledgmentsThis book is the res
- Page 19 and 20: xviiiEditor’s prefaceinteraction
- Page 21 and 22: xxEditor’s prefaceof socio-techni
- Page 24 and 25: 1. Informationalism, networks, and
- Page 26 and 27: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 28 and 29: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 30 and 31: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 32 and 33: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 34 and 35: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 36 and 37: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 38 and 39: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 40 and 41: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 42 and 43: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 44 and 45: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 46 and 47: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 48 and 49: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 50 and 51: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 52 and 53: the network society, in a binary mo
- Page 56 and 57: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 58 and 59: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 60 and 61: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 62 and 63: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 64 and 65: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 66: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 70 and 71: 2. Institutional models of the netw
- Page 72 and 73: Silicon Valley and Finland 51PATHS
- Page 74 and 75: Silicon Valley and Finland 53Table
- Page 76 and 77: Silicon Valley and Finland 55the fi
- Page 78 and 79: Silicon Valley and Finland 57There
- Page 80 and 81: Silicon Valley and Finland 59inform
- Page 82 and 83: Silicon Valley and Finland 61that I
- Page 84 and 85: Silicon Valley and Finland 63EBay,
- Page 86 and 87: Silicon Valley and Finland 65produc
- Page 88 and 89: wholly devoted to, or dependent on,
- Page 90 and 91: Silicon Valley and Finland 69The st
- Page 92 and 93: Silicon Valley and Finland 71JOT Au
- Page 94 and 95: Silicon Valley and Finland 73risk i
- Page 96 and 97: Silicon Valley and Finland 75respec
- Page 98 and 99: Silicon Valley and Finland 77esting
- Page 100 and 101: Silicon Valley and Finland 79100090
- Page 102 and 103: Silicon Valley and Finland 81the Fi
34 Manuel Castellssources of social structuration and social chan<strong>ge</strong>. Switchers are not persons,but they are made up of persons. They are actors, but made up of networks ofactors, engaging in dynamic interfaces that are specifically operated in eachparticular process of connection. Programmers and switchers are those actorsand networks of actors that, because of their position in the social structure,exercise power in the network society.Power and Counter-power in the Network SocietyProcesses of power-making must be seen from two perspectives: on the onehand, seizing and/or enforcing power; on the other hand, resisting power, onbehalf of interests, values, and projects that are excluded or under-representedin the programs of the networks. Analytically, both processes ultimatelyconfigure power structures through their interaction. But they are distinct.They do, however, operate on the same logic. This means that resistance topower is effected through the same two mechanisms that constitute power inthe network society: the programs of the networks, and the switches betweennetworks. Thus, the collective action of social movements, in their differentforms, aims to introduce new instructions and new codes into the networks’programs. For instance, new instructions in the global financial networksmean that under conditions of extreme poverty debt should be condoned forsome countries, as demanded, and partially obtained, by the JubileeMovement. Another example of a new code in the global financial networks isthe project of evaluating company stocks according to the company’s environmentalethics in the hope that this will ultimately impact on the attitude ofinvestors and shareholders vis-à-vis companies deemed to be bad citizens ofthe planet. Under these conditions, the code of economic calculation shiftsfrom growth potential to sustainable growth potential.More radical reprogramming comes from resistance movements aimed ataltering the fundamental principle of a network – or the kernel of the programcode, to maintain the parallel with software langua<strong>ge</strong>. For instance, if God’swill must prevail under all conditions (as stated by Christian fundamentalists),the institutional networks that constitute the legal and judicial systems must bereprogrammed, not to follow the political constitution, legal prescriptions, orgovernment decisions (for example, in letting women decide about their ownbodies and pregnancies), but to submit them to the interpretation of God’s willby his earthly bishops. In another example, when the movement for globaljustice claims that trade agreements mana<strong>ge</strong>d by the World Trade Organizationshould be re-written to include environmental conservation, social rights, andrespect for indi<strong>ge</strong>nous minorities, it is acting to modify the programs underwhich the networks of the global economy work.The second mechanism of resistance consists in blocking the switches of