The distinction between memory and history is subtle, often ephemeral, and rarely considered except at the moments when their invisible forms collide in material representation. Conflict over representation is nothing new, but almost always seems to occur when collective memories come into contact, calling a present vision of the past into question in a way that makes obvious that it is the future that is somehow at stake. No cultural form seems immune to questions about content and ideology, but museums seem particularly ripe for the picking. Unlike films, novels, and artwork, for example, museums carry with them the expectation of historical accuracy, the belief that truthful representation of “reality” is possible. As the postmodern realization that it is the present that contains both past and future has sunk in, claims on knowledge associated with museums have been called into question. As Pierre Nora proposes, with the loss of history, we have only memory left. This memory, like history, is collective in its nature, yet replaces tradition and ritual with representation in all its varied forms. In this context, it seems only natural that conflicts over representation frequently have as subtext questions about power, ideology and group identity. Further, it seems only natural that these conflicts tend to play out as struggles for control of and access to narratives.
Exposing American Power in a Networked World
If nothing else, the ongoing Wikileaks event has certainly been fascinating. The recent event highlights the dynamics of power in a networked world, from the inside look at the arrogant manner in which our diplomats perceive their colleagues in other nations, to the exposure of corporate influence on state business such as in the case of Mastercard and Visa in Russia, and Shell in Nigeria, to the manner in which the US government has used its influence to persuade "independent" corporations throughout the world to deny access to services including commerce and web hosting to Wikileaks. Following are my preliminary thoughts on the essence of the events unfolding around the release of Wikileaks from the perspective of changes we are seeing globally as network society grows.
The Corporate State
In the case of Russia, we can observe the infiltration of the corporate into state functions, where President Obama has intervened on behalf of Mastercard and Visa in an attempt to thwart the creation of a Russian owned credit processing agency. The potential loss of business for globally dominant credit card processing agencies was not only a matter for the state, but for the president, himself. In the case of Nigeria, which happens to be the 8th largest supplier of oil internationally, Nigerian government interests (which at least claim to operate on behalf of its people) are shown to have been subverted by the installation of Shell executives at all levels of governance.
And the reverse operation, using state power to influence corporate actions, is also in full operation. Senator Lieberman brashly intervened with Amazon such that they have refused to host the Wikileaks website, a Swiss Bank is pursuaded to close the Wikileaks account, apparently for legitimate reasons that may or may not have been exposed without US state intervention, Visa and Mastercard are likely encouraged to refuse service to Wikileaks, while continuing to allow donations to organizations such as the KKK, and PayPal openly admits that they were caused, via a letter they received from the US State Department, to view Wikileaks actions as illegal, and thus, in violation of their service agreement, in spite of the fact that there are still no charges against the organization.
Continue reading "Exposing American Power in a Networked World" »
Permalink