Information Technology and Social Transformation Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democ racy in the Age of Network Technology by Darin Barney; Mapping Cyberspace by Martin Dodge; Rob Kitchin; The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach by Danie l Miller; Don Slater; The Emerge nce of Noopolitik: Toward an Amer ican Information S trategy by John Arquilla; David Ronfeldt Review by: Robert Latham International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 101-115 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186276 . Accessed: 26/02/2012 13:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Studies Review. http://www.jstor.org
Transcript
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
Information Technology and Social TransformationPrometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Network Technology by DarinBarney; Mapping Cyberspace by Martin Dodge; Rob Kitchin; The Internet: An EthnographicApproach by Daniel Miller; Don Slater; The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward an AmericanInformation Strategy by John Arquilla; David RonfeldtReview by: Robert Latham
International Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 101-115Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3186276 .
Accessed: 26/02/2012 13:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to International Studies Review.
Prometheus Wired:The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Network Tech-
nology, DarinBarney (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2000). 340 pp.,cloth (ISBN: 0-226-03745-2), $29.00.
Mapping Cyberspace, Martin Dodge and Rob Kitchin (London: Routledge,2001). 260 pp., paper (ISBN: 0-415-19884-4), $32.99; cloth (ISBN: 0-415-
19883-6), $100.00.
The Internet: An Ethnographic Approach, Daniel Miller and Don Slater(Oxford:Berg, 2000). 224 pp., paper (ISBN: 1-85973-389-1), $19.50; cloth
(ISBN: 1-85973-384-0), $65.00.
The Emergence of Noopolitik: Towardan American Information Strategy,JohnArquillaand David Ronfeldt(SantaMonica,Calif.:RAND, 1999). 102pp.,paper(ISBN: 0-8330-2698-4), $15.00.
uch of humankind'suture s nowhitched o thetrainof information
technology (IT) and the "neweconomy."Across the last decade,pol-icymakers,activists, internationalbureaucrats,business leaders, and
intellectuals have championednew IT-especially the Internet -as a catalystfor generatingeconomic growthanddevelopment, peace andglobal cosmopol-
1Consistent iththesubstance f thebooksreviewed, T is associated eremainly
withtheInternet, ut t is importantot tooverlook hemanyotheraspectsof ITsuchas robotics, imulation, nddataprocessing.
@ 2002 InternationalStudies AssociationPublishedby Blackwell Publishing,350 Main Street, Malden,MA 02148, USA, and 108 Cowley Road, OxfordOX4 IJF, UK.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
itanism, personalfreedom and individual improvement.2The more exclusiveside of this optimistictechnovisionanticipatesthe constructionof virtual cita-
dels, whose safe and secure electronic walls protectagainst cyberterrorism nd
cybercrime.3Spells of skepticism often follow bouts of optimism. A second wave of
commentaryhas begunto emergethatis eager to point out that the effects and
developmentsassociatedwith IT are not necessarily positive or robust.In theworld of policymakersand practitioners, he conceptuallightningrod for thissecond wave's diminishedexpectationsis the "digitaldivide"(conceived as achasmbetweenthe resource-rich onnectedandtheimpoverishedunconnected).4
In the world of researchand analysis, especially in the academy,a secondwave has cast itself across a far wider and deeper front and challenges the
received wisdom on issues from democracyand identity to power and socialspace. The four books discussed here are situated at the front lines of this
analyticalsecond wave.This frontis hardlyunifiedoreven in dialoguewith itself. Shouldwe expect
more?Afterall, each workambitiouslyseeks to rethink,or even contestfrom adistinctdisciplinaryperspective,a section of the first wave of claims aboutIT
thatformanyringas hollow exuberance.But the world of IT scholarship s still
small and made smaller by the fact that each of these works focuses on the
Internet.In addition,all but the RAND study share forms of skepticism and
concerns with issues such as community and equity. Yet they provide littlesense that we are at the birthof a new field of interdisciplinary ocial science
research.In the movie AnnieHall, the characterplayed by WoodyAllen explainsthat
he finds photography nterestingbecause it (unlikepainting)lacks a deep his-
tory of intricate standardsof criticism and aestheticjudgment. My discussion
of these works suggests that that sort of openness applies to the study of IT,which will drawincreasingnumbersof scholars andexperts who are attracted
by suchfluidityandby the sense thatdealingwith ITproducesinstant,cutting-
edge status.Opennessis good, but we needto figureout how to go on from thispoint so that a broadrange of scholars and disciplines can begin generating
2All of these hopes come to together in The Global InformationInfrastructure:Agenda or CooperationWashington, .C.:Departmentf Commerce, 995);avail-ableat(http://iitf.doc.gov/documents/docs/gii/giiagend.html);ccessedanuary2,2001.
3Dorothy Denning describes this well in InformationWarfareand Security(Bos-ton:Addison-Wesley,999).
4Never missinga chanceto turndespair ntoopportunity,ractitionersreat hisdivide as something o be bridged implyby expanding onnectivityn the globalSouth.See theliteraturef the G-8'sDOTForce,especiallyGlobalBridges,DigitalOpportunities,DraftReportof the DOTForce,April 2001; (www.dotforce.org/reports/DOT_Force_2.0c.doc);ccessedApril28, 2001.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
knowledge, dialogically, in this area. Too much is at stake to forgo this. It is
thereforeworthwhiletryingto draw out what I view as the common elementsaddressedby the books. Before doing that,I will review how far these authors
go in challengingthe first wave.Darin Barney in Prometheus Wiredoffers the most deeply skepticalview.
He rejects the assertions that the Internet s inherentlya democratic means ofcommunicationwhile tendingtowardopeningnew forms of equalityas expres-sion, interaction,and access to information.For Barney,a Canadianpoliticalscientist, the use of new informationtechnologies does not in itself mean thatcitizens are actually deciding aboutthe shape and course of their social exis-tence (a crucialtest, he believes, for anyclaim to democracy).His skepticismisnot limited to the realm of politics. According to Barney,the notion that an
"informationrevolution"is underway must be dismissed. From his observa-tionalperch,he sees no realchangein the basic structuresof class andpropertyownershipthat would give meaningto the wordrevolution.His thirdchallengeto the notion is thatsomethinglike real,rootedcommunityexists via the Inter-net. No meaningfulsense of place and belonging is generated by the bulletin
boards,chatrooms, MUDS, and otherspaces that constitutedigital social life.MartinDodge and Rob Kitchin,two geographersworkingin the U.K., are
also skepticalin Mapping Cyberspaceaboutearlycommentaryon online com-
munities,especially as they bearon the questionof social space. The Internet,
according to Dodge and Kitchin, is not spaceless, despite assertions that itcompressestime and leads to the "deathof distance." They questionwhethersuch existing online communities constitutenew public spaces on the Internet,as earlier advocates claimed.6At the same time, there appearto be so manypowerful private, corporateforces constructing,maintaining,and monitoringsuch spaces-to say nothing of the zoned-off proprietary paces corporationsmaintain orthemselves n variousIntranets ndVirtualPrivateNetworks.Dodgeand Kitchin sharethe skepticismwith Barneythatconcepts of belonging and
place can be applied to virtual communities, and they doubt that "place"(in
physical,geographical erms) s becomingless relevant n a wired world.Indeed,against claims that the Internet has spawned a global civil society spinningwebs of decentralizedconnectivitythatweaken thegridof nation-states,Dodgeand Kitchin arguethat states are using and learningto use IT, especially the
local governments, to conduct business and enhance their legitimacy amongcitizens.
5FrancesCairncross,TheDeath
ofDistance: How the CommunicationsRevolution
WillChangeOurLives(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard usinessSchoolPress,1997).6The ocus classicusextolling heattractions f virtual ommunitiess in Howard
Rheingold, The VirtualCommunity:Homesteading on the Virtual Frontier (Boston:Addison-Wesley,993).
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
A focus on an individual state and society distinguishesDaniel Miller andDon Slater's TheInternet:An EthnographicApproach. They arekeenly inter-
ested in demonstratingthat the Internet-from websites to e-mail-is not a
virtualrealmapartfrom the everydaylives of ordinarypeople-as early advo-cates often understood t to be-but deeply imbricated n them.The lives that
interest he authorsareon the islandnationof Trinidad,whichMillerandSlater,who live in the U.K. andworkrespectivelyas anthropologistsandsociologists,have studiedextensively. They see the Internetnot as some fixed sociotechno-
logical entityawaitingapplicationby users as earlierenthusiastsoften implied.It comes to life only in the specific uses of particulargroupsandcommunities,be they religious, ethnic, or familial.7Ratherthanunderminingsuch real-time
formsof association,as was prognosticatedby some championsof life online,
connectivity, the authorscontend, is strengtheningand extending more tradi-tional social formslike families. In supportof that observationandcontrary o
and Slaterfind that thereis farmore Internetuse by ordinary olks-and comfort
in thatuse-than even they suspectedbefore beginningtheirfieldwork.8
What policymakerswould do with such varying views-if they became
awareof them-is far fromclear.Two U.S. policy analystsfromRAND, John
ArquillaandDavid Ronfeldt, seek to clarify the new media in theirstudy,The
Emergenceof Noopolitik, sponsoredby the Departmentof Defense. Centralto
their effort is overcomingthe first wave of nationalsecurityfear of a "digitalPearlHarbor,"wherecyberterrorist ttacks(sponsoredperhapsby roguestates,terroristnetworks,oranarchistichackers)renderhelpless U.S. state andprivatesector informationsystems and infrastructures.Arquillaand Ronfeldt want to
shift the policy-makingframeworkfrom a realist-inspired,zero-sumfocus on
defendingagainstthreatsto a concernwith reapingthe rewardsof cooperationin a new worldof burgeoning nformationandproliferatingactors(all thewhile
keeping one eye open for trouble). Cooperation,in their view, will not only
bringthe usual benefits of coordinationof policies andinternational ollective
action.It also can enable a global shapingof the concepts,agendas,andworld-views of themanyactorsfrom statesto nongovernmental rganizations NGOs)thatpopulatethe global realmin a mannerthat is in the U.S. nationalinterest.
7DodgeandKitchincautionreaders o rejecttechnologicaldeterminism, view
that reats echnology s anindependentorceor variablehataffectssocial ife.Theyask us to focus on "howwe can use, alter andreshapecyberspaceo ourbenefit"(p. 25). Theyfail to addresshepoliticalquestionof how to define"we"and"our."Technologicaleterminisms antinormativeince t does notallowfor ethicalchoices
overthe shapeandpurposeof technology see Barney, h. 7), but so is the naivepositingof choice.
8The authorsacknowledge nly in passingthatthey are awarethatTrinidads
hardly epresentativef thedevelopingworld.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
While the second wave has challenged inherited views of techno-exuberance,
this has not stoppedit fromtryingto identifyfor us whatis or is not new aboutthe new IT.Changeand newness as a themehave been at the heart of analysisand commentaryon the social dimensions of IT since the beginning of our
current nformationandcommunicationage.9These authorsareno exception.They of course differ on questions of what is new, how it is new, andto whateffect.
The authorsof these books discuss the new in fourbroad dimensions: con-
ceptual frameworks,spaces, practices,and architecturesof power. "New" canmean theemergenceof some phenomenon hatdid not exist before (e.g., digital
libraries);a transformationn some condition or force that alterssociohistoricalcontexts (e.g., widening inequality);or anoverturningof perceptionsandwaysof doing things that produces significant trajectoriesof social change (e.g.,network-organized irms).
The first dimension-conceptual frameworks-already has been touchedon in the contrastbetween the first and second waves. Indeed, the notion that
technological innovation has or must producenew understandingsabouthowthe world works is an essential assumptionof techno-exuberance.Dodge andKitchin-who ask us to consider how cyberspace is being representedas a
space or set of spaces-argue that this is an importantquestionbecause suchrepresentationsreveal our vision of the world. Thus, ratherthan see the firstwave of observations aboutIT as somethingsimply to be dismissed, we mightask in whatways they arebecomingthe operatingprinciplesof the information
age.Dodge and Kitchin never explicitly develop this implication, which is a
greatloss because we sorelyneed to studythe ideology of IT andhelp generatea sociology of knowledge.10Barneymoves us much furtheralongthese lines in
9Themostprominentarlystatementf transformationn thecontemporaryeriodis in Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post-IndustrialSociety (New York: Basic Books,1973).For a studyof thinkingn anearlier ra dominated y theleadingedgeof thetelephone,eeCarolynMarvin,WhenOldTechnologiesWereNew(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1990).
10Twoworks hat ouchonthisarePaulN.Edwards,TheClosedWorld:Computersand the Politics of Discourse in Cold WarAmerica (Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press,1996),andGretchenBenderandTimothyDrukrey,ds.,Culture n theBrink: deol-ogies of TechnologyNewYork:FreePress,1998).DodgeandKitchinhintatthis in
ch. 10, whichreviewsthe (social)science fictionof cyberspace.n theirconcludingchapter,heyalsolistrelevant uestionsor furthertudy.Anexampleof thisfrom hepast,whichaddressesechnologyn generalnrelationopolitical heory,s inLang-donWinner,AutonomousTechnology:TechnicsOutof Controlas a Theme n PoliticalThoughtCambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1977).
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
his argumentsabout the growing power of a technologism that assumes allsocial problemsarereducible to technologicalfixes and thatoccludes the pos-sibility for political disputeover the directionof publicpolicy.1"Yet this famil-
iar notionmay not be the best startingplace for generatingsubstantialresearchprogramson the ideology of IT.These programswould addressquestionssuchas whether models of the informationstate areemergingto shape concepts of
authorityand power-and our political imaginationsmore generally-withinand across boundaries.Perhapsstates areonly beginningto figureout how theywill organize power within and across societies via IT. Rather than wait for
full-fledged models to appear,we need to criticallyassess the processof build-
ing the informationstate.12
It is more interestingto better understand he sociology of knowledge sur-
roundingwhat is arguablythe leading new conceptualframework ying at theheart of social commentaryon IT: the network.The Internet s often definedin
a thumbnail as a network of networks. Manuel Castells, in his much noted
recent trilogy, has gone so far as to declare the birth of NetworkSociety.13Networks-as a structureof human interactionand organization-have cap-tured both the popularand scholarly imagination.Threetypes of networksare
particularlyrelevantto IT and figure in differentways in these books. One is
the social network,constitutedby thepersonal inksbetweenindividuals.Miller
andSlater'sfocus on family,business, andidentitygrouprelationshipsunfold-
ing across the Internet lies squarelyin the social networkrealm.14 A secondtype is the computeror electronicnetwork.Dodge and Kitchintracefor us the
visual depictionsof the millions of electronicwebs thatform across the globe.
Barneydevotes an entirechapterto reviewing for the less IT-initiated he var-
ious logics and histories of the networkof networks,which is the Internet.He
pointsnicely to an important ension:while these networkscan seem open and
expansive, they also are structuresof control that can channel our lives into
delimitedchoices andmenus.
"•Barneyemindsme of the 1960sclassicby HerbertMarcuse,OneDimensionalMan Boston:BeaconPress,1964).Although eengagesKarlMarx ndMartinHeideg-ger,Barney ssentially gnores he Frankfurtchool,whichwasverymuch nformed
byboth hinkers.f hehadtaken hemup,hemighthave notendedwitha critique f
technologism ut startedhere.12Oneinitial oray ntothistopic, ocusingmostlyon the institutionalrganization,
is in Jane E. Fountain,Building the VirtualState: InformationTechnologyand Insti-tutionalChange Washington, .C.:Brookingsnstitution,001).
This observation ies in to the third ype of network,which is closely relatedto the first two: the organizationalnetwork,drivenby logics of dispersalandconcentration.The new, flexible corporation s the chief conceptuallocus for
this typeof network:short-term,nonhierarchical lliancesemergeacrossfirms,productionunits,andgeographical spaces in a web of nodes andlinks thattakeon a virtual character facilitatedby social andelectronicconnections).Barneyalso reviews this networkform, andthe chief virtue of his discussion-whichotherwise covers familiarterritory-is to remind us that the emergence of anew economy does not mean thatcapitalismis moving away from the highlyuneven concentrationsof wealth andpower thatcompose its history.
Interestingly,Arquillaand Ronfeldt are in fact quite enamored of network
organization.They advocate that the U.S. stateadoptsimilarstrategiesof alli-
ance formationwith every mannerof actorin the global realm.They thinkthatadoptingsuch strategiesmight go a long way towardovercomingthe zero-sum
mentality that is still prevalentand build on the strengthsof actors such as
U.S.-friendlyNGOs. It would avoid unnecessarymistrustwith otherstatesthatwould otherwise be identified only as "the competition."I am among thosetroubledby the question of who decides what alliances and flexible relation-
ships shouldbe formed or broken andexactly for whatpurpose.U.S. historyasa state and network makeroften has not been prettybecause it has been dom-inated by the deadly effective formationand maintenanceof intelligence and
counterinsurgencynetworks well after the end of the Cold War.15At stake in conceptual frameworks are not only practicalunderstandings
abouthow the world works,but also academicapproachesandtheories-as is
clearly the case with networks. Are new social science methods,models, andtheoriesnecessary,and what would be theirrelationto existing ones? How dowe demarcatehistoricalperiods (the "networkage," the "knowledgesociety,"the "informationage") or evaluate claims about historical continuityand dis-
continuity?In what way do we integrateinsights involving old technologiessuch as the telegraphor previousperiods of global expansion such as the late
nineteenthcentury?16 None of these books addressesthese questionsin depth.Perhapsthe field is not far enough along yet andmust wait for furthergenera-tions of scholars who aremore aptto do so.
Yet Dodge and Kitchin suggest how the discipline of geography should
engage on new termsthe Internetandthe cyberspaceit makespossible. Geog-rapherswould need to give up theirtendencies to assume thatspace is contin-uous andwell ordered,andthatmaps,as I will soon discuss, arerepresentations
5Oneset of examples s documentedn HumanRightsWatch,Colombia'sKillerNetworks: TheMilitary-ParamilitaryPartnershipand the United States (New York:HumanRightsWatch,1996).
of territory.They will need to work in more metaphoricalterms, since in thevirtualworld,the visualizationof a spacebecomes the geographicalobjectandis no longer simply the visual andconceptualdepictionof terra irma.17
Miller and Slater,it shouldbe noted, are explicit abouttheir use of ethno-graphicmethods.They essentially adoptthe recentlyexploredmultisite ethno-
graphic,which requiresresearchersto work in differenttypes of sites-from
the home to the corporateboardroom-rather thanone site such as a village.18This approach s particularlyappropriateor Internetstudies that take life off-line as seriously as life online.19
Althoughthey do not directly address the statusof academicframeworks,
Arquillaand Ronfeldt imply thatsome of the recentchanges in focus in inter-
nationalrelations (IR) are necessary for developing an effective U.S. "infor-
mationstrategy" p. 1). These include the studyof nonstateactorsandactivistnetworks,norms,and expandingconceptions of security.The field of IR will
have to thinkcarefullyaboutthe implicationsof how fast its new approaches-once partof a criticalstance-have become caught up in policy researchagen-das.Moreover,when it comes to technology,a quickperusalof military-relatedwebsites-like that of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA)-will show thatthere are serious reasonsto at least suspectthatIRis
behind the curve on innovative forms of thinking about security.20On what
terms do researchersengage policymakingwhen policymakersare no longer
mostly consumersof scholarly knowledge productionandbecome the primarysources of conceptualinnovationin an arealike IT and security?
However new IT might be, thinkingabout it can become an occasion for
applyingor expandinglong-standingideas andperspectivesfrom Marxism to
liberalism.Barney self-consciously avoids any poststructuralistmethodologyin his analysis (which would emphasize, among other things, fragmentationandfluidity). Instead,he relies on classic philosophy(Aristotle),phenomenol-
ogy (Heidegger), Marxism, and (Leo) Straussian-inspiredcultural criticism
(GeorgeGrant).Discussions of new technologies and social practices relating
to them are superb opportunitiesto make claims about the applicabilityand
17Dodge andKitchin ecognize hata cyber-spatialonstructionanbe Euclidean"ifexplicitlyprogrammedo do so"(p. 30).
18GeorgeMarcus, Ethnographyn/of theWorldSystem:TheEmergencef Multi-SitedEthnography,"nnualReview fAnthropology4 (1995),pp.95-117, is amajorarticulationf thisapproach.
19A developedexploration f ethnographyndthe Internets in DavidHakken,Cyborgs@ Cyberspace:AnEthnographerLooks to the Future(New York:Routledge,1999), pp. 37-68.
enduringnatureof ethical concerns such as equality, virtue, andjustice. We
sorely needtheoreticalvantagepointsfromwhich to assess and mediate ethicalcontinuitiesand discontinuities,as well as bodies of research that take a long
historical view of social transformation associated with technology andcommunication.
The second dimension of the new that is at play in these works is space.This dimension is central to Dodge and Kitchin, who do an excellent job of
bringing together the many ways that Internetconnectivity, interactions,anddata have been visualized in spatial terms and discussed in relevant litera-tures.21They claim to be moreambitious,seeking "to theorize the role of spaceand the natureof online spatiality"(p. 1). While they outline importantques-tions for furtherresearch and theory in their concluding chapter,they never
theorizemuch directlythemselves.They hadthegreatestopportunity o theorizearound he questionof what is
at stakepolitically, economically, and socially, and in the fact that the Internettakes form mostly as a series of spaces. Spaces mean walls, proprietary ones,and self-contained governancerules. While we know zonality has importantimplications for public and private distinctions, we still do not understand twell or how it might reverberate nto practicesassociated with citizenship, for
example.Another arearipe for theoryis the mappingof cyberspace.We do not have
to view firsthandthe medieval maps of the world, paintedon the walls of thePalazzo Vecchio in Florence, to understandhow crucial geographicalframe-works are to social and political orders. The relationshipbetween geographyand internationalrelations (the practices, not necessarily the disciplines) hasbeenveryclose. As mapsof cyberspacebecomeincreasingprevalentandsalientto claims both local andglobal aboutwealth,power,andidentity,we hadbetter
gain an analytical way to understand he trendsanddevelopments.22 t will be
impossible to do so without addressinghow transboundary yberspaces cutacross and intersectwith physical geographies.At this point, all that seems to
be available aredepictionsof nodes of connectivity,which map smoothlyontothe physical place of urbancenters like New YorkandAmsterdam.
It is interestingthat the virtualgeographies profiledby Dodge and Kitchinmoreor less hold physical geographyconstant,as thoughit too were a smooth
space as depictedin the latest mapof nationsand theircapitalcities. Ourcon-
ceptions of physical space should change to reflect the developing politicaltrenches,economic concentrations,and resourcescarcities,and this should be
integratedwith conceptions of virtual space. In turn, it will be importantto
drawout the historical dimensions of each form of space and of the intersec-tions between them.23 Histories of connectivity,interaction,and datawill helpus see the lumpy and zonal characterof cyberspaceand make plainerthe real
estate of the Internet.24
ArquillaandRonfeldtseeksmoothnessof space,whichtheycall,"noosphere"(pp. 12-20) and which is at the core of theirarguments o adoptan information
strategy.The noosphereis the global cloud of an intellectualenvironment hat
contains all the ideas generatedand circulatedamong nations, organizations,
groups,and individuals.It also includes the social and technical infrastructure
thatmakes such generationand circulationpossible (the media, new and old,transboundary etworks,and educationsystems).
Viewed from afar,the noosphere(fromnoos, meaning"mind") akes form
as an ideational metaweb of webs, within which all the disparate ntellectual
endeavorof humankindcoheres into a collective intelligence for the planet-however decentralizedand distributed ts partsare. As with any metaphysicalreification and at any point in history,we can view the planetaryspectrumof
ideas and declare the existence of such a space (althoughit would be more
modest withoutthe new mediaof today).Arquillaand Ronfeldtareambiguous
about whetherthis noospherealreadyexists (implied in theirdescriptionof it)or must be constructed(implied in theirU.S. policy proscriptions)by the U.S.
state and its partners(state and nonstate).They seem to lean towardthe latter
since the presenceof an up-and-runningnoospherewould leave far less room
for the U.S. state not only to shapebut also to make such a sphere,with all the
attendantadvantagessuch centralitybrings.25Viewed up close, the noosphere is a "battlegroundof ideas" (p. 1) into
which the United States ought to get fully involved to ensure that its vision
prevails(a vision thatmore or less reducesto liberalcapitalismplus global civil
society). Thisrecognitionof ideationalconflict gives us no hintof theexistenceof anyrealgeographyof ideas-political divisions and boundaries hatmaynot
be subjectto polite recognitionof differencesor to deliberateactionsto reduce
23Somemightargue hat hishistoryhasyet to unfold n a meaningfulense. Butthere s a decades-long istoryof thedevelopmentf the Internet nda much ongerhistoryof conceptualizingirtual paces o drawon sinceat leasttheMiddleAges.
24Barney einforces pointoften orgotten:here s considerablewnershipnvolved
in theInternet,rom andlines ndsatellites o domainnames.25 Theauthorsrgueorpolicymakersoself-consciouslyakea Gramscianpproach
of hegemony,with tsemphasis nmakingactorswant he orderheyhave,or at leasttake t forgranted s theway thingsare.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
tensions throughalliances or media campaigns.We need not accept the argu-ments of Samuel Huntingtonin Clash of Civilizations to acknowledge that
theremay exist manytransnational deationalspaces (basedperhapson region
or ideationalaffinity), which are not reducedproductivelyto a single space or(noo)sphere.After all, the authors are willing to recognize the existence of a
separate"militarynoosphere" p. 51) that involves conceptsof andapproachesto joint militaryactivities andcommon security.
As policy analysts,Arquillaand Ronfeldtaimto changehow policymakers
pursuesecurity-less througharmsbuildups,morethrough acilitatingthe flowof information(of the rightkind, of course). New practicesarerequired,suchas sharinginformation,goals, and activities with NGOs and launchingglobalpublic informationcampaignsthat eschew the "psych ops" mentalityassoci-
ated with the cold war.26The strategiesof action and specific operationsand routines of individuals
andorganizationsbringus to the thirddimension of the new: practices.A focuson practicesis a fruitful avenueof researchandanalysisbecause it forces us toconsider how the logics of macrosocialsystemsintersect with themicrochoicesand actions of groupsand individuals.
Claims that new practicesare emerging or existing ones are being recon-
figuredcan be found throughout he books discussed here. Least satisfying onthis score are those by BarneyandDodge and Kitchin.Barney pointsto how IT
is deepening the practicesassociated with a burgeoningconsumerism. It alsofacilitates the dwindlingof workers' skills in today'snetworkcorporationsand
opens up new avenues of surveillance (of work and lifestyle). His survey oftrendsis admirable,but he generalizesto such an extent that we areleft guess-ing as to how much these patternsdominatepeople's lives and whether indi-viduals are devising strategies to counter them (one example is the simpleavoidanceof corporateIntranetchat rooms).
Dodge and Kitchin also generalizeenough to undermine he force of their
commentary.Theypointto how a spatialtendency(to approach lectronic social
interaction n spatialterms)shapeshow individuals andorganizationsconstructand act in theircyberspaces.We are left clueless as to whether thereare alter-native modes of organizingsocial life online (perhapsvia code anddatabases).Withoutthose alternativesfor comparison,it is impossible to know how much
of-and exactly how-electronic social interaction s being influencedby spa-tiality (andwhat moregeneralimpactthis has on social interaction).If space is
26Theauthors epeatedly ualifysuchcelebrations f opennesswiththecaution o
policymakerso beguarded.While hismaybea strategicmoveontheirpart oplacatethe naturaluspicions f policymakers,he authors ail to acknowledgehat heirkeyphrase, guardedpenness"p.52),is anoxymoron. heyhavenointerestn anoospherethatis open in any meaningful ense of the term.The contradictions etweentherelatively losed stateandtherelativelyopenInternet refertilegroundorstudy.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
a categoryfundamental o humansociality the way languageis, we need theo-ries of its social construction hatspecify its logics andmechanisms.Dodge andKitchin focus instead on the details of online spatialvisualization.
As already mentioned, Miller and Slater are far more specific in theirapproach.Much of their book discusses practices,althoughthey do not explic-itly develop the theme. This prominenceflows from their effort to focus onhow (local) Trinidadians nter the (global) Internet,rather han the reverse(the
perspectivestressedby Barney). Since Miller and Slater view the Internetnotas an abstractglobalform,butcomposedof theactivitiesof particulargroups-e.g., families staying in contact from afar,businesses reachingout for trade,and churchesconnecting to Trinidiandiasporas-they can concentrateon themacro-andmicrointersections ssociatedwithpractices.Theyfind someintrigu-
ing trends such as how nationalist and cosmopolitan identities complementeach other, or the way an increase in our knowledge of other identities canincreasethe sense of securityabout our own identity.
New architecturesof power are the fourth and final dimension from whichto view these works.27This dimension entails creatingpatternsof governancestructures and concentrations of resources (economic, political, and social).
Arquillaand Ronfeldt place much emphasis on power and are of two minds
aboutit. They pick up the recentIR themes about the diffusion andfragmenta-tion of power away from the state--especially the core states-to NGOs and
social movements.But they still cling to the notion that U.S. hegemonyoughtto be supportedandis necessaryas a centralforce in the global realm.
Theiranalysishardlyhelps us answerquestionssuch as whethernew struc-
tures of governance are emerging that involve states, transnationalcorpora-tions, multilateralorganizations,andNGOs, and whatimplicationsthese mighthave for existing structures.How different do things look from and across
local, national,andglobal perspectives?Barneyis correct n being skepticalof
claims thatpoweris movingto civil society becauseof IT,even in the resource-
rich North andaway from states andtransnational orporationsbecause of the
networkingand communicationoptionsavailabletodayand into the near future.Instead,IT is being used to consolidate and expand power, above all that of
capitalism. Dodge and Kitchin agree because IT can aid organizationaland
spatialhierarchy.Places andfirmsuse IT to drawresources to themselves and
better manage their global activities, which furtherdisplaces the peripheralzones and actors. The question-left unansweredby both books-is to whatsort of architectureof power this new vitality in the existing hierarchiesis
leading.Are we watchingthe emergenceof new modes of governance operat-ing across the global and local divide that place corporations-cooperating
27I firstheard hisphraseapplied o globalsocialandpoliticalpower n conversa-tionwithSaskiaSassen.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
together-in far more expansive roles than previously known in history?28Where does that leave bilateraland multilateral ntergovernmental elations?Are new forms of resource concentrationemergingthatgo unnoticed because
we lack the analytical tools? More broadly,are the very logics of capitalismchanging-around such basic processes as the productionof value?
To EMBED OR NOT TO EMBED?
Recall that one of the chief complaints of Miller and Slater against earlier
commentaryon IT is the implicationthat informationsystems can be treatedas
though they operatein a realmapartfrombroadersocial and political fabrics.
For Miller and Slaterthat fabric is Trinidad,a place and distinct society, how-ever transnationaland porous its boundaries(via connections to its diasporasand the rest of the world). The authorseffectively claim that the electronicinteractionsof Trinidadiansare embedded in the social structures,relations,and communities that constituteTrinidad'ssocial life.
The questionof embeddedness of informationsystems andpracticesis notunlikequestionsthathaveemerged n economicsociology and economicanthro-
pology about the wisdom of viewing marketsystems as self-containedsocialfields that ignore the force of "networksof interpersonalrelations." 9 In both
theeconomic andtechnologicrealms,it is notonly possible to view a systemasdisembeddedfrom a social context (its norms, identities,and modes of operat-ing). Such a system can turnaroundand swallow up-or "colonize,"as JiirgenHabermasput it-the contexts thatmight otherwise surround t.30 Ultimately,the system becomes the metacontext for sociopolitical life, which is what Bar-
ney argues we have to fear: electronic-basednetworks become the environswithinwhich we live out ourlives as we work,view art, learn,andreach out tothe world beyond (p. 103).
A greatdeal is analyticallyat stake in the choices made aboutembedded-
ness: which fields of force areembeddedin which; whetherdisembeddednessis a meaningfulstatusto attach to something;or whether the issue is ignored
28Weareonlyat thebeginningof thinkinghroughhesequestions.Onechargedcritique f thepowerof mediaconglomeratesverpoliticsandsociety s byRobertW.McChesney,RichMedia, Poor Democracy: CommunicationPolitics inDubious Times(New York:NewPress,2000).
ogism). I find myself attractedto the notion that there are various mixes of
embeddingand disembedding,sometimes across domains (e.g., economy and
polity) and sometimes within the same one. Barney's points about the techno-colonization of the life world are strengthened by his argumentthat digitalnetworksare embeddedin capitalist productionmodes and relations. He sug-
gests that we shouldmove quicklyto revitalize thepowerand democraticchar-acter of the social fabric tied to geographicplace and historic communityto
effect a reembedding.Dodge and Kitchin are keen to underscore hat at least in
the privilegedrealmsof the North Atlantic "cyberspaceand geographic spaceare not separaterealms, they are interwoven"(p. 24), especially since "real
geographies are gradually being ... composed, controlled, and surveyed byICTs"(p. 22).
Theblendingand nterweaving heme canbe overplayedsincewhat is impor-tant and interestingis the tension between forces and logics that embed and
disembed. Note thatKarlPolanyi,whose writingis so centrallyassociatedwiththis issue, did not simply argue in The Great Transformation hat markets,which have become disembeddedfromthe needs of society, oughtto be reem-
bedded. Rather he showed that marketsonly appearto be disembedded. In
reality, they are embedded in the macropoliticalstructuresand practices of
liberal states, which make theirapparentdisembeddednesspossible. I wonder
whether the same complex interplay ies beneaththe appearanceof states that
abdicatedtheirauthorityover Internetgovernanceto the market.
CONCLUSION
Whatever he balance of strengthsandweaknesses in these fourbooks, they to-
getheroffer-relative to earlier works-a varied andrich portraitof develop-mentsbearingon IT.Barney'sbookis bestforgaininga deeperunderstanding f
thepolitical issues at stake.Dodge andKitchin'sbook servesto convey in detailhow cyberspaceis conceived as spaceand how some geographerswill begin to
approachhissubject.Miller andSlater'sbook-although less sophisticated hanthe other woworks-makes palpable he humandimensionsof changeandhelps
preventreaders n theglobalNorthfrommyopicallythinking hat hisis onlytheirtransformation.inally,ArquillaandRonfeldt'sbook-while leastsatisfying roma scholarly viewpoint-prompts us to reflect on the many ways thatdevelop-mentsmight reshapewhat statesdo in an informationworld.
8/2/2019 Latham Information Technology and Social Transformation 2002
Viewedfromafar,all four books suggestthat studentsof IT will be caught n-
creasinglybetween two distinct forces. Onone side arethe social science disci-
plines,which haveyetto absorb T as a substantial reaof researchor as acategory
of analysislike class oridentity.Onwhattermsthedisciplineswill do so is notatall clear.Dodge and Kitchinshow thereis at least a road for geography.MillerandSlaterstake a claim for anthropology,whichis linked to morelong-standingethnographic oncernswithpeoples andplacesrather hanvirtualcommunities.
Barneydemonstrateshat tis imperative orpolitical theory o take on this realm.
Despite the best efforts of some, especially in political science, to avoidreplay-ing methodological squabbles, t mightbe an inevitable"riteof passage"for IT.We will hear loud debates at some pointaboutwhetherITis an independentor
interveningvariableor betterrelegatedto the statusof dependentvariable(de-
batesplayedoutin thepastovertechnologicalinnovations suchas therailroad).Howeverroughand awkward inkingITto social science mightbe, the intersec-tion can only benefitboth,as the studyof ITgains from the long-standingtheo-reticalandanalyticalconcernsof social science andthepossibilityfor substantiveresearchandhistoricalperspective.Social science, in turn,can be refreshedbythe logics of communication, nformation,and innovationassociated with IT.
On the other side are the practitionersn civil societies, militaries,and cor-
porations who in many ways are far ahead of more sober analysts in their
conceptualizationsof what they are doing in this area and how.31 New prac-
tices, tactics, methods,andtechniquesareemergingso fast thatit is impossiblefor scholars and experts to keep up. At some point, practitionerswill realize
theyhave left thegeneralpopulationbehind(notjust scholars),andat thatpointthey may turnin earnest to social science to understandbetter the relationshipbetween technology and society.
The question is will social science be ready and, more important,will ithave themastery o set andpursue tsown researchagendas nformedby thought-ful ethics and compelling theory?I have suggestedin this essay some startingpoints for such agendas.These include concerns with how physical anddigital
social spaces togetherarebounded,intersected,historicized,ethically and ide-ationally mapped, socially constituted,and rendereduneven in their develop-ment;how macrosocialsystems intersect with microchoices;how ITmatters nthe overall balanceof the lives of individuals andsocieties; how new architec-
tures of power and governance,as well as models of political agency such asthe informationstate,maybe in formation hat are local andglobal in scale;andhow we might be witnessing changes in the very logics of capitalism.
31Thenew SocialScienceResearchCouncilprogramn IT,Internationalooper-ationandGlobalSecurity, asorganizedtselfalong he fault inesof these woforcesof scholarship ndpolicymaking.Theprogrameeks to fosterhigh-qualityesearchthatcanhelpbuilda field andengagewithpolicy-makingrocesses.
