Foucault & Nakamura: Who’s got power?

I guess the hope of the internet, kind of like what Clay Shirky was getting at in his book, is that the open design of the internet can somehow transcend all barriers and be completely fair in an ideal world. It’s very optimistic and idealic, and I think the Foucault and Nakamura readings this week completely grounded us after reading Shirky. They argue that other side, that the internet is just another tool, and that the hegemony of society doesn’t necessarily go away with the internet.

From what I know about Foucault, for him, everything is about power. Speaking truth to power, who has power, who wants power, etc. He sees power as the core to all relationships. And knowledge and truth exist because of power. Having knowledge is a power over those who do not. Which leads to the divide between the haves and the have-nots.

“It is not the activity of the subject of knowledge that produces a corpus of knowldge, useful or resistant to power; but power-knowledge, the processes and struggles that traverse it and which it is made up, that determines the forms and possible domains of knowledge...” (Foucault)

It’s a dichotomy: Knowledge exists with power. One can’t exist without the other (for Foucault). Those in power control individuals to keep the society regulated and in control.

Power takes the form of discipline with the Panopticon, which to my understanding, represents how people are controlled and managed. The prison and the penitentiary manage people’s behavior, efficiently. In the Panopticon, the power is visible, it is a surveillance system that doesn’t try to hide. Think of the red-light cameras. They all have signs up that tell drivers that they are at an intersection with red-light cameras. The signs are visible reminders of the power that the officials have over drivers. They have that power to fine you for running the light at all times, and because that camera is visible, the power is maintained. The internet doesn’t work outside this concept. There are ways in which every click you make is tracked. And it’s not really secret either, thus acting the same as the red-light cameras, playing the part of that visible watch-dog, happily wagging it’s power tail.

Cybertyping reminds me of remediation to borrow from our previous readings. The internet ‘cybertypes’ people just as in prvious mediums. Minorities are remastered to be different or to at least seem different. This is a similar hegemony to Foucault. Putting people into ‘us vs. them,’ ‘others,’ or ‘haves and have-nots.’ No matter what you want to call the groups, it’s still a result of who has power and who doesn’t, and the power is always based on those-who-have-it’s standard of power.

How Foucault and Nakamura relate to new and emerging technologies, is that technology can be a tool of power and control.

“Power is exercised rather than possessed; it is not the ‘privilege.’ acquired or preserved, of the dominate class, but the overall effect of its strategic position of those who are dominated.” (Foucault)

You might think that power is a numbers game, but Foucault seems to say that it is more a strategy game. Its not just the largest group who holds power, and we can see that in just about any government system. Those in power are of a small portion of the population. The wealthy, the educated, the well connected. Even the systems that call themselves ‘democracies.’ They should be open and free so that theoretically everyone holds power, but look at our system, it’s not a pure democracy, but a representational one. There are steps to ensure that the people do not have complete control. The Electoral College is a prime example. The people cannot directly elect their national leader. The system exists as a kind of barrier, kind of like a Panopticon designed to manage the people. I suppose on the one side you might say that it is a way of maintaining some consistency, or keeping the system stable. Stability is a worry for those designing a government, and if you think about democracy is just one step away from anarchy. Pure democracy could be the equivalent of a ‘pure internet.’ where ideally everything works smoothly without management, and hegemony doesn’t exist. Whether that is truly ever possible, well it doesn’t seem likely to me, but then again all I know is hegemony because I live in the current, and power is unescapable.

Shirky and Group Formation

Over the weekend I went and saw the movie Amelia, directed by Mira Nair and starring Hillary Swank in the title role. The film was alright. The aerial photography was beautiful and everything looks great. The art direction and the costumes all work together to put you in the 30s. But the story itself feels anticlimactic; it kind of coasts along but it never soars. I think it is safe to say that 99.9% of people know what happens to Amelia in the end, so there’s not a whole lot to build up to, but still I think she’s interesting enough that in the hands of a different director and writer this movie could have been a lot better. I felt a little like I did after seeing Valkyrie last year. After that film I wanted to write the producers and tell them, “I know they don’t kill Hitler, so stop trying to convince me your movie is a thriller and supposed to keep me guessing! There’s no guesswork here!”

Alas historical movies continually get made, and it seems that filmmakers like to take the approach that people don’t know their history, so they spell it out, which just makes me feel a little insulted.

Now coincidentally, tonight on the news, there was a short story pointing out the box office success of the film Paranormal Activity. It is the number movie in the country right now, with a total gross so far of about 33 million. The estimated budget was $15,000. It stars a handful of unknown actors. It was written, directed, and edited by one person. The total cast and crew listed on Imdb is about 25. In contrast, Amelia had a high-profile award winning cast and crew, yet made (granted this is only its first opening weekend) 4 million. According to the news program I saw, it had a budget of $100,000 million. It’s got a ways to go before it even breaks even.

There’s a lot of contrasting points that could be made between the films. Paranaormal was shot on a very low budget, Amelia a typical high Hollywood budget. Paranormal was shot in digital, Amelia was shot on 35mm. Paranormal plays off a documentary storytelling style, Amelia is a standard classical Hollywood bio-pic. You could say that the difference between these two movies is a generational gap in how to make a movie. Low budget films are finding ways to distribute themselves cheaper and more easily than ever before now, with greater success than ever.

This relates directly to what Shirky talks about in Here Comes Everybody. In the opening story about the lost cell phone, we see the power of group effort as people rallied behind Evan’s efforts to get his friend’s cell phone back. As people found his site through word of mouth, some marketing, and probably some random findings, they connected and communicated. Group effort is not new, and Shirky recognizes this, he just notes that the modes of how the group forms have changed/are changing. For cult movies, the distribution of the film is usually limited. However a ‘cult following’ develops mostly out of communication, by word-of-mouth. Someone sees the movie, they tell their friends they like it, and pretty soon the movie gets a reputation and it’s still talked about for years to come. Now with social networks, people can self-promote to their followers until the sun comes up, via something like Twitter for instance. Then someone else can RT (retweet) and thus promote them to a new set of followers and the cycle continues...

Shirky explains how group formation and group promotion is easier than ever with the internet. And he seems to have great faith in people to not only form groups but act on them. All this organizing happens outside established institutions. I think the main point of the book is that community can work easier than managerial corporations with these new technologies. There is a downside though. On the one hand, independent films can be promoted easier with fewer pricey advertisements. Bands can put their music up through creative commons or free downloads and thus gain a fan base without ever coming near a record company. People can find other people who share their interests and communicate and collaborate with each other. In the best examples, people collaborate and bring about social change and act out in the world like ARGs or the recent PAC-We.Then again groups can form that are malicious to their members, like the pro-anorexia groups. It seems that it is in their right to have websites under free speech, but to what degree is that ok? I don’t think Shirky really addresses these kind of issues where group formation is harmful to others.

But when it comes to the state of movies at the box office. When a $15,000 independent movie can find itself at a film festival and be seen by Spielberg and thus hit theaters nationwide to make millions and millions of dollars, I have to wonder what the future state of film promotion will be. The amateur film can be made better and easier than ever, and can compare to the high-tech big productions of Hollywood films. (I mean something like the Canon 5D Mark II is visually stunning at a fraction of the price of most film cameras). So maybe even an institution like Hollywood isn’t safe from this social change that is occurring with internet revolution. (yup, i’m starting to think revolution now)