What are the pros and cons of the rise of networks - Essay Example

What are the pros and cons of the rise of networks? In fact, the very existence of networks is not unique for human history with the existence of ancient and grassroots forms of them (Castells, 2004, p. 4-5); however, it is unique for contemporary world that networks became a basis of social structure at global level. Moreover, it significantly challenges methodological nationalism in contemporary science, because “national organization as a structuring principle of societal and political action can no longer serve as a premise for the social-scientific observer perspective” (Beck, 2003, p. 456). In other words, it is evident that network turn in our times calls not only for the new appearance of contemporary global society but also on the completely new methodology of its analysis and perception. In this context, common binary judgments no longer explain global social structure. To put in in Beck’s (2003) words, “it becomes suddenly obvious that it is neither possible to clearly distinguish between national and the international, nor, in a similar way, to convincingly contrast homogeneous units […], so that the national is no longer national, just as international is no longer international” (p. 458). To put it simple, “a network society is a society whose social structure is made of networks powered by microelectronics-based information and communication technologies.” (Castells, 2004, p. 3). In this definition, it is evident that network as an essential part of social structure has a two-fold basis for its functioning. In this context, it is necessary to concentrate on the reasons of network to empower. In fact, this argumentation enables to comprehend the core contradiction that appears with the rise of networks. Among the key drivers towards the new network society, Castells (2010) mentions technological revolution, growing interdependence between contemporary economies, and empowering of capitalism after the collapse of Soviet Union (p. 1). In other words, “social changes are as dramatic as the technological and economic processes of transformation” (Castells, 2010, p. 2). In the case of technology, the very ability to analyze innovations in the close link with social movements rejects technological determinism. In particular, it is presented as a deeply rooted in the social fabric instance, which is a mirror of prevailing type of social and economic knowledge, organizational framework, and network disposition (Castells, 2010, p. 35). In the context of the latest technological revolution, Castells (2010) emphasizes the role of Silicon Valley in America as a precise driver of this significant change (p. 62). Moreover, he stresses on the genetic engineering as “they also refer to the decoding and recoding of the information of living matter” (Castells, 2004, p. 7). In other words, it is evident that the core feature of generic innovations is their direct involvement in the structure of human being. Thus, its impact in the new technological revolution is real. In contrast to technological determinism, Castells (2004) combines new industrial revolution with social (movements of the late 60s) and economic (crisis of industrialism) processes; although, he finds this combination accidental (p. 15). In other words, without the emergence of new environment highly appreciating freedom, diversity, and tolerance there was no opportunity for network society to win (Castells, 2004, p. 19). Hence, it is evident that network society is a necessary tool for human needs, and it has both advantages and disadvantages as any choice made by the group of free people. At the very beginning, it was a “network of venture capital firms” at the core of its formation (Castells, 2010, p. 64). Moreover, the identification it possess is a combination of knowledge and information, meaning it is self-sufficient in providing innovative attractiveness and commercial success (Castells, 2010, p. 67). In fact, the networking peculiarities of the new economy are based on the existence of mutual actions between smaller business networks (Castells, 2010, p. 77). On the contrary to previous corporate monopolistic structure of economy, “a network has no center, just nodes” (Castells, 2004, p. 3). In fact, Castells (2004) determines three main strengths of networks: flexibility, scalability, and survivability (p. 5). In short, these features refer to the ability of network to adapt, change its size with no harm, and hide its vital connecting point from attacks (Castells, 2004, p. 6). Correspondingly, Naim (2003) mentions that contemporary global networks are almost irresistible, because they have blurring geographical borders, fast internal coordination, inspiration and strong loyal ties in their nature (p. 35). Among the central advantages of network is its orientation on the performance as it is not the result of previous work. As Castells (2004) states, success in the conditions of network environment “depends on the ability to outperform other networks by superior efficiency in performance or in cooperation capacity” (p. 4). Another important obvious advantage is its decentralization. In this context, “each network defines its own power system depending on its programmed goals” (Castells, 2004, p. 31). In this case, network society is making true the ideal of democratic federation, as each group lives freely in its own way. In addition, this structure reveals its survival power, as the way to change rulers is not that simple as it was before. As Castells (2004) defines this feature, “in a world of networks, the ability to exercise control over others depends on two basic mechanisms: the ability to program/reprogram the network(s) in terms of the goals assigned to the network; and the ability to connect different networks to ensure their cooperation by sharing common goals and increasing resources” (p. 32). In the given characteristics, it is easily seen that it is almost impossible to change balance of power within networks individually. Nevertheless, the researches made by Foucault turn this advantage upside down. As a negative consequence of the rise of networks in global context, Castells (2010) stresses on the role of criminal organization as entities that create “the means for stimulation of mental hyperactivity and forbidden desire, along with all forms of illicit trade demanded by our societies, from sophisticated weaponry to human flesh” (p. 2). Thus, it is relevant to state that flaws of previous societies and human nature with the help of networks turned global. For instance, the appearance and vitality of international terrorism is illustrative in this case. Precisely, widely popular terroristic activity of al Qaeda is the case of constant analysis in the negative context of contemporary networks (Naim, 2003; Castells, 2004; Castells, 2010). In addition, its media representation covers other unsuccessful attempts to combat illegal networks in five general directions (trading drugs, weapon, people, intellectual property and money) (Naim, 2003, p. 29). In other words, nation-states had imposed certain limits that no local could overcome; but new reality neglected this obstacle. In the context of drug war, the inventive power of illegal traders played a low-down trick with national governments, as their money is simply not working in overcoming these criminal networks (Naim, 2003, p. 30). Even though this problem mostly refers to the power struggle between powerful centralized entities (like governments and corporations) and smaller networked groups, it touches ordinary people too. For instance, pharmaceutical drug counterfeit popularity means that most people in Nigeria are highly likely to use bootleg copy not a medication to cure their severe diseases (Naim, 2003, p. 32). Naim (2003) sees the core reason of rising network criminality in faster usage of brand-new technologies by non-centralized networks rather than by its inclusion in budgeting policies of contemporary governments (p. 34). In addition, networks rise the issue of self-identification to the global extent. In particular, Castells (2010) mentions that “global networks of instrumental exchanges selectively switch on and off individuals, groups, regions, and even countries, according to their relevance in fulfilling the goals processed in the network, in a relentless flow of strategic decisions (p. 3). In this context, the key argument in the book titled “A Rise of Networks” rises, as “our societies are increasingly structured around a bipolar opposition between the Net and Self” (Castells, 2010, p. 3). In case of identity, it is reasonable to state that network as a more powerful and sophisticated system complicates the understanding and inclusion into any entity for each person. In other words, dynamic structure of network means that it has blurring features, and turn the nature of this overall entity to the instrumentalist one. In this context, the very nature of network requires the existence of specific “self-reconfigurable, complex structures of communication” (Castells, 2004, p. 4). Thus, the identification markers are blurring in the process of communication, and it is hard for people to maintain constant identity in these conditions. To put it in words of Castells (2010), it means “structural schizophrenia between function and meaning” (p. 3). In the context identity crisis, Castells (2010) provides an example of rising European racism as a contradiction between abstract European and blurring national identity experienced by the members of contemporary EU (p. 23-24). Although, Beck’s (2003) analysis leads to the conclusion that contemporary difficulties with the “intranational” European identity have their root in the current process of certain “turbulence” (p. 462). Nevertheless, Beck does not agree with such an explanation of network society’s disadvantages by the time lag; on the contrary, he blames the internal structure of network in causing its own fragmentation (Castells, 2004, p. 23). In this context, emergence of fundamentalism is a demonstration of the way “the Net switches off the self”; in response, “the self, individual or collective, constructs its meaning without global, instrumental reference” (Castells, 2010, p. 24). In other words, the internal process of identification is not clear from the very beginning of network existence; furthermore, demonstrations of conduct and enthusiasm between network members are rather temporal than stable phenomena. However, both Naim (2003) and Beck (2003) find the core reason of networks not working accordingly in national repressive actions against their activity. Moreover, Beck (2003) raises this competition to the level of the battle of different epochs or states of mind (p. 463). In correspondence with this assumption, the experience of corporate market (that operates more freely in contrast to governmental bodies) reveals the rising role of newcomers on the top of both US and global rank of companies (Naim, 2013, p. 3). References: Beck, U., 2003. Toward a New Critical Theory with a Cosmopolitan Intent. Constellations, 10(4), pp. 453-468. Castells, M., 2004. Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint. In: M. Castells, ed. 2004. The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 3-48. Castells, M., 2010. The Rise of the Network Society. Second ed. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Naim, M., 2003. Five Wars of Globalization. Foreign Policy, January-February, pp. 29-37. Naim, M., 2013. The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being in Charge Isn’t What It Used To Be. New York: Basic Books. Read More