OPEN SCIENCE
This week's topic is on micropolitics. Micropolitics can be defined as ideas of networks that are self sufficient, dependent, with technics that function differently from socio-cultural norms (Wikitionary 2013).
I did some research into the opinions of other past students who studied micropolitics and it interests me that their ideas aren't that far off from what has been taught now. Sapountzis (2011) believes that micropolitics has dynamic power that allows it to rework itself and the society around us in an open source democratic way. Calacouris (2011) further emphasised the inception of micropolitics as a result of the fear of government institutional power, he talks about the unequal rights to power because the government has access to our ip addresses and capable of monitoring and spying on people's actions without their consent.
Micropolitics in my opinion is quite relevant to networked internet cultures for the past few years. The empowerment of individuality seems pervasive as it gives people the ability and willpower to conceptualize their ideas into reality, share their projects and share information instantaneously and globally.
We can say that the internet is a crucible for multiple micropolitical networks to thrive and grow. There's even potential for these networks to shift transversally, vertically and horizontally with other small communities.
The example I could think of is the foundation of P2P sharing in networks. We all have electronic storage space that allows us to share information to people. The power of these networks shares power to other people and the dynamic structure of these networks.
Kickstarter, Dropbox and mobile applications are interesting examples to consider simply because it gives meaning to user generated technology. These are central to this theory of micropolitics simply because of the shift in power between client and server. We used to heavily rely on sources to gain access to certain information but because of this big change, power and rights of usage are equally shared with people on the internet.
Calacouris, G 2011, ARTS3091: Is the Internet a micropolitical network?, Blogpost, accessed 13 May 2013,
<http://gcalacouris.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/arts3091-is-the-internet-a-micropolitical-network/>
Sapountzis, F 2011, Week 9 - Social Organisation = Micropolitics, Networks, Designing for and Living in New Communities, Blogpost, accessed 13 May 2013,
<http://felicias3091.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/week-9-social-organisation.html>
Wikitionary 2013, Micropolitics, Wikitionary, accessed 13 May 2013,http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/micropolitics
Wednesday 8 May 2013
Thursday 2 May 2013
ARTS3091 - Wk8 - Politics, transparency and truths
SOCIAL ORGANISATION
Will the idea of physical boundaries, policies and other ideals of state government's die with the emergence of online media? I certainly don't think so, even if transparency becomes more pervasive.
Politics has always been quite a behind-the-scenes ideology. The only times we ever talk about politics is when leaders, politicians and other things come in to contact with news reporting media. We only ever get narrow gaps of big things that are actually happen, especially in the Australian government, we watch their televised parliamentary discussions, tune into interviews and other sources. But what actually happens behind the scenes? What actually happens when politicians are in the office, what do they actually talk about and what do they actually do? No one in the general public really knows.
Which is definitely why this debate about more political transparency is taking place. Especially in Australia, with the competence the government is showing us these days, people especially young people wonder what the 'fat cats' are really doing. One reading talks about transparency in timetable to see if the public can help make it more efficient. I argue that although I enjoy knowing what the prime minister is doing I also don't want it to be something that can be accessed that easily by the public. Much like military records, there is a reason why this stuff is a need to know basis. We keep it private so that people who might threaten us cannot cause us harm.
An example I could recall was the Mumbai Attack in 2008. Terrorists were able to co-ordinate in great succession to assassinate and carry out their attacks on innocent people and made it difficult for the Indian military to detain simply because the media was reporting live about what is happening for the terrorists to see. Sure, they were killed in the end, but the media helped undermine the operation in some respects.
The media has also helped oppose political power in a number of ways, Occupy Wall Street being one of many. It helped connect people together and this transparency has extended to connect the event to the rest of the world. This cross country, boundary-less environment created from online media public space is our greatest asset yet also a great curse. Anyone can use a computer to do this, it's quite hard to imagine having this level of power during the civil rights protests in the 60s.
Will the idea of physical boundaries, policies and other ideals of state government's die with the emergence of online media? I certainly don't think so, even if transparency becomes more pervasive.
Politics has always been quite a behind-the-scenes ideology. The only times we ever talk about politics is when leaders, politicians and other things come in to contact with news reporting media. We only ever get narrow gaps of big things that are actually happen, especially in the Australian government, we watch their televised parliamentary discussions, tune into interviews and other sources. But what actually happens behind the scenes? What actually happens when politicians are in the office, what do they actually talk about and what do they actually do? No one in the general public really knows.
Which is definitely why this debate about more political transparency is taking place. Especially in Australia, with the competence the government is showing us these days, people especially young people wonder what the 'fat cats' are really doing. One reading talks about transparency in timetable to see if the public can help make it more efficient. I argue that although I enjoy knowing what the prime minister is doing I also don't want it to be something that can be accessed that easily by the public. Much like military records, there is a reason why this stuff is a need to know basis. We keep it private so that people who might threaten us cannot cause us harm.
An example I could recall was the Mumbai Attack in 2008. Terrorists were able to co-ordinate in great succession to assassinate and carry out their attacks on innocent people and made it difficult for the Indian military to detain simply because the media was reporting live about what is happening for the terrorists to see. Sure, they were killed in the end, but the media helped undermine the operation in some respects.
The media has also helped oppose political power in a number of ways, Occupy Wall Street being one of many. It helped connect people together and this transparency has extended to connect the event to the rest of the world. This cross country, boundary-less environment created from online media public space is our greatest asset yet also a great curse. Anyone can use a computer to do this, it's quite hard to imagine having this level of power during the civil rights protests in the 60s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)