Upload
helgeudk
View
81
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
MA dissertation. Goldsmiths, University of London. 2012.
Citation preview
Biopolitical Simulations:
Governing Life in FuturICT
Submitted by Helge Peters (33206931) in partial requirement for the degree of MA Media and Communications in the Programme in Contemporary Cultural
Processes, Goldsmiths College, University of London
August 2012
Helge Peters (student no. 33206931) Course code: MC71044A Course title: MA Media and Communications (theory) dissertation Supervisor: Dr Sarah Kember Date: 31 August 2012 14991 words
2
Abstract FuturICTisacurrentproposalforanEU‐fundedbigscienceprojectwhichseeks
toleveragedatafromtheinternetinordertocreatepredictivesimulationsof
globalsocialandeconomicsystems.Utilisingtheoreticalframeworksand
simulationtechniquesinformedbycomplexityscience,theprojectpromisesto
developnewformsofgovernanceinacomplexworld.DrawingonMichel
Foucault’sanalysisofbiopower,thisdissertationexamineshowandwithwhich
consequenceslifefiguresasanobjectofknowledgeandagovernabledomainin
FuturICT.
WhereastheknowledgeoflifewhichbothMichelFoucaultandGeorges
Canguilhemdescribeforthe19thcenturystressedthemesoforganic
homeostasis,contemporarycomplexitytheoriesandthediscourseofartificial
lifedescribelifeasaprocessofemergenceandself‐organisationabstractedfrom
itsmateriality.Itwillbearguedthatthesimulationsofemergentsocial
structures,andthetechniquesforguidingself‐organisationwhichFuturICT
derivesfrombiomimeticresearch,marktheentryofaspecificcontemporary
knowledgeoflifeintothegovernmentoflivingbeings.
Drawingonfeministandothercriticalanalysesoftechnoscience,theknowledge‐
makingpracticeofFuturICTisexaminedasrestingonaproblematicconceptof
objectivityandenactinganaturalisationofsocialrelations.Insistinginsteadon
life’sspecificityasanobjectofknowledgemightyieldwaysforresistingthe
instrumentalisationoflifeforprojectsofdomination.
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Literature review: the social and the vital
2.1. Biopower at the threshold of modernity 9
2.2. Knowing life 12
2.3. Regulating life 17
2.4. Cyborg life 22
2.5. Vital complexity 25
3. Methodology 32
4. Case study: governing life in FuturICT
4.1. FuturICT, big data and the technological zone 35
4.2. “Simulating life on Earth and everything it relates to“ 39
4.3. Simulation, situatedness, transformation 47
4.4. Imag(in)ing global life 52
4.5. Biomimetic government 57
5. Conclusion: biopolitical simulations 63
Bibliography 68
4
Table of Figures
Fig.1 Video still of revolving globe enveloped by data 52
Fig.2 The whole earth as interface 53
5
1. Introduction
Oneofthemostpeculiarcharacteristicsofcontemporarysocietymightbethe
convergenceofmedia,technology,andlife.AsSarahKembersuggests,
consideringthe"technologisationofbiologyfrommechanicalmetaphorsofthe
heartaspumptothegeneticinformationalisationoflifeitself"andthe
"biologisationoftechnologyfromcyberneticstoartificialintelligencetoartificial
life"(Kember,2006:235),theprocessesofexchangebetweenmedia,technology
andthelifesciencesseemtorunbothways.Atthesametime,theincreasing
involvementofnetworkeddigitalmediainsocialprocessesyieldsnewformsof
socialmeasure.Inasense,digitalmediahavetransformedtheactoftakingthe
vitalsignsofanaggregateoflivingbeings:iftheaddresseeofthequestion,“How
arewefeelingtoday?“isawholepopulation,theanswermightbefoundby
miningTwitterdatausinglanguage‐processingalgorithmsthatmeasurethe
affectiveconnotationofstatusmessages(Misloveetal.,2010).
DrawingonMichelFoucault’sconceptofbiopowerasamodalityofpower
predicatedonlife,Iwillaskinthisdissertationifthereexistsaspecific
biopoliticspertainingtothisscenarioofbiologisedmedia,mediatedbiology,and
digitisedpopulation.IwilldosobyinvestigatingFuturICT,arecentproposalfor
anEU‐fundedbigscienceprojectwhichpromisestoleveragedatafromthe
Internetinorderto“simulatelifeonEarthandeverythingitrelatesto“
(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:76).Thus,thequestionIwilladdressishow,andwith
whichconsequences,lifebecomesanobjectofknowledgeandagovernable
domainwithinFuturICT.Thisinvolvesquestionsregardingthewaylifeis
renderedcomputableandtowhatextentitisthusinstrumentalised;how
6
boundariesbetweennatureandsocietyareredrawnwithintheprojectproposal;
towhatextentthenaturalisationofanobjectofknowledgeresonateswitha
progressnarrativepromisingmasteryovernaturethroughobjectiveknowledge;
andwhatpoliticalconsequencesmightfollowfromthisefforttosimulatelifeon
Earth.
Life,however,isnotanunproblematicconcept;neitherisbiopower.Inthe
followingchapter,Iwilltrytoarriveatanunderstandingofbiopowerwhich
registersthatthismodalityofpowerpertainsnotonlytothegovernmentof
livingbeings,butalsoincorporatesaspecificknowledgeofbiologicallifeintoa
generaleconomyofpower.Inthissense,biopowerdenotesacertainbecoming‐
vitalofthesocial.Theunderlyingconceptoflifeinformingthenotionof
biopowerwillbetracedthroughreadingsofbothGeorgesCanguilhemand
MichelFoucault.However,iflifeisahistoricallycontingentproductofbiological
discourse,towhatextentneedwereconsiderourunderstandingofbiopowerin
lightofrecenttransformationsofthediscourseonlife?Iwillattempta
provisionalanswerbyreconstructingtheinfluenceofcyberneticsand
complexitytheoriesonthereconceptualisationofvital,social,andtechnological
systemsasessentiallyanalogouscomplex,ifnotliving,entities.
Investigatingthemutualsupportofsystemsofknowledgeandtechnologiesof
power,mymethodology(chapterthree)isinformedbyreadingsofFoucault’s
notionofcritiqueaswellasDonnaHaraway’sunderstandingofthe
technosciencesasaculturalpracticewhichfocusesattentiononthepower
dimensionthatisatstakeintheconstructionofboundariesbetweennatureand
culture.
7
Inchapterfour,Iwillexaminethewaysinwhichlifeisatstakeinthedomainof
knowledgeandpowerthatFuturICTcircumscribes.Lifefiguresthreefoldin
FuturICT:asthedomaintobesimulatedandgoverned,asinformingthespecific
methodologyofsimulationitself,andasaresourceforbiomimetictechnologies
forgoverningnaturalisedsocialsystems.SituatingFuturICTinanongoing
debateabouttheemergenceofbigdatatechnologies,Iwillproceedtoexamine
howthesimulationofemergentsocialstructuresproposedinFuturICT
intersectswithartificialliferesearch,anddiscusssharedstrategiesfor
naturalisinganobjectofknowledgeandthusauthorisingtheproductionof
mattersoffact.DrawingonDonnaHaraway’scallforsituatedknowledges,Iwill
thenexaminehowthesestrategiesofobjectiveknowledge‐makingresonatewith
afantasyofomnisciencepermeatingthetechnosciences,andregistercritical
voiceswithincomplexitydiscoursewhichmightproblematisetheunderlying
epistemologyofFuturICT.TheinitiatorsoftheFuturICTproposalunderscorethe
project’svitalnecessitybyimaginingaworldoutofcontrol,whichneedstobe
masteredbyscienceandtechnology.Analysingthevisualandtextualnarrative
ofFuturICT,Iwillarguethataprogressnarrativetappingintoagendered
imaginaryofnatureisstrategicallydeployedinordertosecuretheacceptanceof
technicalsolutionsforsocialandpoliticalproblems.Thesesolutionsregister
socialsystemsascomplex,ifnotlivingentitieswhicharetobegovernedby
applyingmechanismsauthorisedbybiologicaldiscourses.However,Iwillargue
thatnaturalisingthesocialasacomplex,livingsystemnarrowsthespacefor
politicalcontestationandmightservetoprivilegethegivenorderoverprojects
oftransformation.
8
Concludinginchapterfivewithadiscussionofthecontinuitiesanddifferencesof
knowledgesoflifeandthebiopoliticaltechniquesunderlyingthespecific
articulationofbiopowerinFuturICT,Iwilldrawattentiontothewaysinwhich
life’sspecificityasanobjectofknowledgemighthelptoresisttotalising
epistemologiesandenableethicopoliticalprojectsoftransformation,insteadof
instrumentalisingknowledgeoflifeforthegovernmentoflivingbeings.
9
2. Literature review: the social and the vital
2.1 Biopower at the threshold of modernity
Foucaultexplicitlymentionstheconceptofbiopowerintheconcludinglectureof
hislectureseriesSocietyMustBeDefendedattheCollègedeFrancefrom17
March1976(Foucault,2004)andinthelastchapterofTheHistoryofSexuality
Vol.Ifrom1976(Foucault,2008).Lateron,Foucaultwoulddeveloptheconcept
ofbiopowerfurtherinhislecturesonSecurity,Territory,PopulationandThe
BirthofBiopoliticsfrom1977to1978(Foucault,2007;2008a).Allofthese
analysesbringonespecificperiodoftimetothefore;orrather,thetransition
betweentwoperiods.Boththeformationofthesexualitydispositifandthe
rationalitiesanddiscourseofmoderngovernmentalityhappenedatthe
thresholdbetweenwhatFoucaulttermedtheclassicalageandthemodernagein
Europe,betweenthe18thandthe19thcentury.Thisperiodwitnesseddecisive
changesintheepistemicorder,leadingtotheformationofnewknowledgesand
methodsofenquiry,athemeFoucaultexploredinhisearlierworkTheOrderof
Things(Foucault,2002).Whatismore,betweenthe18thand19thcenturya
differentconfigurationofrationalities,techniquesandinstitutionsofpower
begantoemergeinconjunctionwithnewwaysofknowing,amodalityofpower
whichFoucaultwouldcallbiopower.
Foucaultdistinguishesbetweenthreemodalitiesofpowerwhichareeach
characterisedbyspecificrationalities,techniques,andobjects.However,thisis
nottosaythatthesemodalitiesconstitutedifferenthistoricalperiodsordisplace
eachother.Ratherthanthat,theycharacteriseaprevailingrationalitywhich
organisestherelationbetweendifferenttechniquesandreferentsofpower
10
(Foucault,2007:8).Thesovereignpowerofthepre‐classicalageischaracterised
asa“righttoseizure“(Foucault,2008:136)centeredaroundthefigureofthe
sovereignruler.However,atthethresholdbetweentheclassicalageandthe
modernage,theformationofanewregimeofpowertakesplacethatbecomes
productiveratherthansubtractive,apower
toincite,reinforce,control,monitor,optimise,andorganisetheforcesunderit:a
powerbentongeneratingforces,makingthemgrowandorderingthem,rather
thanonededicatedtoimpedingthem,makingthemsubmit,ordestroyingthem
(Foucault,2008:136).
Consequently,the19thcenturyseesthedevelopmentofamoraldiscourseon
povertyandonhealth,andatthesametimethedevelopmentofdisciplinary
institutionssuchastheschoolandtheprison.Withintheseinstitutionsandtheir
discourses,an“anatomo‐politics“(Foucault,2008:139)emergesthatisdirected
attheindividualhumanbody,discipliningitsunrulyforcesandthereby
producingthedocilebody,trainedtobeproductivelyintegratedintothe
machine‐likeinstitutionsoffactoryandarmy(Foucault,1991).However,from
the19thcenturyonwards,disciplinarypowerisgraduallysupplementedbya
newmodalityofpowerthatoperatesaccordingtoadifferentrationality,namely
biopower.Theprescriptionofarigidnormativeidealcodedwithintheforbidden
andtheobligatorytypicalofdisciplinarypowerisdisplacedbyanorientation
towardsdescribingandinfluencingempiricallyoccurringregularities:
11
Disciplineworksinanempty,artificialspacethatistobecompletely
constructed.Security1willrelyonanumberofmaterialgivens...Itissimplya
matterofmaximisingthepositiveelements,forwhichoneprovidesthebest
possiblecirculation,andofminimisingwhatisriskyandinconvenient(Foucault,
2007:19)
Moreover,contrarytodisciplinarypower,whichisdirectedattheindividual
body,biopowerisconcernedwithgoverningphenomenaobservableonan
aggregatelevel.IanHackingnoteshowtheearly19thcenturywitnessedan
“avalancheofprintednumbers“(Hacking,1982:281),thatis,averitable
inflationofpracticesofmeasuring,countingandnumericallyrecordingsocial
phenomena.Hence,newformsofsocialmeasuregaverisetothenormasan
empiricallygivendistributionofeventswhichallowsforsomedeviationwithin
parametersdescribableintermsofprobability.Nolongerwasthecausalityof
eventssuchasscarcity,crime,andsicknessexplainedcosmologicallyas
determinedbyfortune,God’swill,orMan’sevilnature,butratherinsertedintoa
spaceofprobabilitygovernedbyquasi‐naturallaws(Foucault,2007:47).
Henceforth,biopowerstrivestogovern“aleatoryeventsthatoccurwithina
populationthatexistsoveraperiodoftime“(Foucault,2004:246).Thethen‐
newnotionofthepopulationcametoguidegovernmentalintervention,which
employedtechniquesofstatisticalmeasurementtogainknowledgeof“births
andmortality,thelevelofhealth,lifeexpectancyandlongevity,withallthe
conditionsthatcancausethesetovary“onthescaleofthepopulation(Foucault,
2008:139).Thisorientationtowardsaregulationof“biologicalor1Security,here,standsmetonymicallyforbiopowerbecausethesecurityapparatus,aswillbeexplainedlater,isoneofitsdefiningmechanisms.
12
biosociologicalprocessescharacteristicofhumanmasses“(Foucault,2004:250)
entailedaspecificknowledgeoflife,fromwhichthenotionofthepopulationand
itscharacteristicdynamicscouldemerge.Itispreciselyatthispointofthe“entry
oflifeintohistory,thatis,theentryofphenomenapeculiartothelifeofthe
humanspeciesintotheorderofknowledgeandpower“(Foucault,2008:142)
thatFoucaultsituatesthe“thresholdofmodernity“(Foucault,2008:143)andthe
beginningofbiopower.
2.2 Knowing life
Whatisatstakeinbiopowerisnotexclusivelybodilylifebutanotionoflife
whichisinextricablyentangledwithascientificunderstandingoflifethat
emergedwiththemoderndisciplineofbiology.2InTheOrderofThings,Foucault
(2002)examinesaruptureintheepistemicorderbetweentheclassicalandthe
modernage.Contrarytoasmoothprogressionofknowledge,Foucaultobserves
arathersuddenchangeintheconditionsofknowingbetweenthe18thand19th
centurywhichleadtothedevelopmentofthehumansciencesandthehuman2Theconceptofbiopowerhasledtoavarietyofproductiveinterpretations.Forinstance,AntonioNegriandMichaelHardt(2000)interpretbiopowerinlightofan
autonomistMarxisttheoretisationofproductivecapacitiesdisseminatedwithina
populationandactualisedasimmateriallabourinpost‐Fordistcapitalistrelationsof
production.GiorgioAgamben(1998)arguesthattheexclusionofbarelife,whichcanbe
killed,fromthequalifiedlifeofthecitizenryisthefoundinggestureofsovereignpower.
Agamben’sconceptofbarelifehasbeencriticisedastranshistorical,neglectingthe
historicalcontingencyofknowledgesoflifewhichFoucaultemphasised(Muhle,2007:
41‐42).Foranoverviewanddiscussionoftheseandotherapproachestobiopowerand
biopoliticsseeLemke(2011).However,thefocusofthisthesisisonlifeasahistorically
contingentreferentofknowledgeandpower.
13
subjectasthecenterofknowledge.Specifically,Foucaultobservesparallel
developmentsinlinguistics,economics,andbiologywhichobtainednewobjects
ofenquiry–language,labour,life–andwereformedasscientificdisciplinesin
themodernsense.Thelatterdisciplineisofimmediateinteresthere.Inthe
classicalage,Foucaultargues,biologyasthescienceoflifeandlivingbeingsdid
notexist,nordidthenotionofbiologicallife:
Allthatexistedwaslivingbeings,whichwereviewedthroughagridof
knowledgeconstitutedbynaturalhistory(Foucault,2002:139).
Thenaturalhistoriansoftheclassicalagewerepreoccupiedwiththe
classificationandtaxonomyoflivingbeings,mainlyinthefieldofbotany.Natural
historyorganisedafieldofvisibilityandsoughttoclosethegapbetweenwhatis
systematicallyobservableanddescribablebyanorientationtowardsthevisible
structureofnaturalbeings(Foucault,2002:144).Bymeansofdescriptionofa
setofvisibledifferences,naturalhistorysoughttoinscribethemultiplicityof
livingbeingsintoauniversalgridorganisedbydifferencesinstructure
(Foucault,2002:149).
However,subsequentlyanorientationtowardstheorganismanditsfunctionsin
relationtothemilieuenabledthenotionoflifetoemerge.Organicstructurewas
nolongerregardedintermsoffrequencyandsimilitudeofappearanceasa
meansoforganisingagridofdifferences,butcametobeexplainedaccordingto
itsfunctiontoperpetuatetheorganism’sexistence:
Theanalysisoforganisms,andthepossibilityofresemblancesanddistinctions
betweenthem,presupposes,therefore,atable,notoftheelements,whichmay
varyfromspeciestospecies,butofthefunctions,which,inlivingbeingsin
14
general,govern,complement,andorderoneanother:notapolygonofpossible
modifications,butahierarchicalpyramidofimportance(Foucault,2002:290)
Classification,then,nolongerconcernedvisibledifferenceswithinanorderof
representation,butfunctionalsimilaritiesofvitalorganswhichwerehiddenin
thedepthsoftheorganismandwouldbecomeobservableonlythroughmethods
ofcomparativeanatomyandsyntheticreasoning.Hence,biologicalenquirycame
tobecenteredonthesimilarwaysorganicentitiesorganisetheirpurpose‐that
is,howtheylive‐throughtheinterdependentworkingsoftheirfunctional
structures.Itisthroughthisdecisivechangeinthewayofsystematically
knowinglivingbeings–fromorderedrepresentationtofunctionalexplanation–
thatlifeitselfasanobjectofknowledgewouldemerge.Lifebecamethatwhich
thelivingbeingwasstructuredfor,andatthesametimethatwhichtranscended
theindividuallivingbeing,whichprecededtheorganismandorganisedits
internalstructureaswellasitsrelationtootherorganismsandtheenvironment:
Livingbeings,becausetheyarealive,cannolongerformatissueofprogressive
andgraduateddifferences;theymustgroupthemselvesaroundnucleiof
coherencewhicharetotallydistinctfromoneanother,andwhicharelikeso
manydifferentplansforthemaintenanceoflife...lifewithdrawsintotheenigma
ofaforceinaccessibleinitsessence,apprehendableonlyintheeffortsitmakes
hereandtheretomanifestandmaintainitself(Foucault,2002:297).
InKnowledgeofLife,GeorgeCanguilhem(2008)developsanunderstandingof
thiselusivecharacteristicofthenotionoflifeviaanexaminationofthethemesof
15
vitalismandmechanism.3Attemptstoreducetheorganismtoamechanism
cannotaccountforthecauseoftheorganism’sdynamicwithoutresortingto
eitherdivinewill,oraman‐mademachineasamodelofcomparison.Thelatter
presupposestheerasureofthelivingsourceofenergythatanimatesthe
machineinordertofunctionasananalogy(Canguilhem,2008:87).However,
withintheorganism“oneobservesphenomenaofself‐construction,self‐
conservation,self‐regulation,andself‐repair”(Canguilhem,2008:88).
Moreover,themechanistanalogyneglectsthefactthatorganiclifebehaves
differentlyfrommechanismsthatarerationallyplannedandconstructed.
Mechanistanalogiesassignorgansapurposefulnessthatistroubledbyempirical
observation,becausetheorganism“haslesspurposeandmorepotentialities“
(Canguilhem,2008:90).Contrarytothemachine’spre‐plannedfunctionality,life
is“experience,thatistosay,improvisation,theutilisationofoccurences;itisan
attemptinalldirections“(Canguilhem,2008:90).Farfrombeingstatic,
organismsconstantlyproducevariations,irregularities,differences:inshort,
anomalies.However,theiranomalycanonlybedeterminedinrelationtothe
successofthelivingbeinginperpetuatingitsexistenceunderchanging
conditions.Canguilhemarguesthatthereisnostablenormalcypropertolife,but
thatitshouldinsteadbeapproachedasan
3VitalismisoftenassociatedwithphilosopherHenriBergson(1998)andhispostulationofavitalforce.WhilethereexistsacertainsimilaritybetweenBergson's
vitalforceandCanguilhem'snotionofvitalnormativity,thefocusherewillbeonthe
latter,sincethevitalforcedoesnotproducenorms,anditwillbearguedthatthenotion
ofvitalnormativityinfluencedFoucault'sunderstandingofbiopoliticalnormalisation
(Muhle,2007:106).
16
organisationofforcesandahierarchyoffunctionswhosestabilityisnecessarily
precarious,foritisthesolutiontoaproblemofequilibrium,compensation,and
compromisebetweendifferentandcompetingpowers...irregularityand
anomalyareconceivednotasaccidentsaffectinganindividualbutasitsvery
existence(Canguilhem,2008:125).
Inthecontextoflife'sperpetualvariability,Canguilhem(1994:335)maintains
thatthedifferentiationbetweenthenormalandthepathologicalstateofthe
organismcannotbereducedtothedescriptionofquantitativedifferenceswithin
thefunctioningoforganicprocessesbecausethepathologicalstateisboth
continuouswiththenormalstate,inthatthenormalfunctionoforganic
processesisexaggeratedordiminished,yetalsodiscontinuousonthelevelofthe
organictotalityinitsrelationwiththeenvironment.Essentially,thenormalin
thecontextoftheorganismcannotbeanexternalpositingintermsofstatistical
measurementbutshouldbeunderstoodasakindofvalue‐ladenjudgement
madebythelivingorganismitselfwhichisnotindifferenttoitsconditionsof
existence(Canguilhem,1994:339).Ontheaggregatelevelofthespecies,life
constantlyproducesvariations,andwhichofthesevariationsturnsouttobe
normalorpathologicalisaquestionnotofthestatisticaldistributionoforganic
featuresbutoflife'sabilitytoperpetuateitselfthroughvariationwithinchanging
environments.Normallife,inthissense,isnormativelife,alifeableto
dynamicallysetitsownnorms:
Thereisnofactthatisnormalorpathologicalinitself.Ananomalyormutation
isnotinitselfpathological.Thesetwoexpressotherpossiblenormsoflife.If
thesenormsareinferiortospecificearliernormsintermsofstability,fecundity,
orvariabilityoflife,theywillbecalledpathological.Ifthesenormsinthesame
17
environmentshouldturnouttobeequivalent,orinanotherenvironment,
superior,theywillbecallednormal.Theirnormalitywillcometothemfrom
theirnormativity(Canguilhem,1994:354).
Inthiscontext,Canguilhemnotesacertainfunctionalmimesisofvitalandsocial
normalisation.Bothlifeandthesocialareobjectsofnormalisingprocesses,
however,thecrucialdifferenceliesintherespectiveimmanenceorexternalityof
vitalorsocialnorms.Whereasthenormsgoverningthesocial“mustbe
represented,learned,remembered,applied“,withintheorganism“therulesfor
adjustingthepartsamongthemselvesareimmanent,presentedwithoutbeing
represented,actingwithneitherdeliberationnorcalculation”(Canguilhem,
1994:376).
2.3 Regulating life
MariaMuhle(2007)arguesthatCanguilhem’sunderstandingoflife’svital
normativityinformsFoucault’snotionofbiopower.Therelationbetweenvital
normativityandbiopoliticalregulationisoneoffunctionalmimesis;whereas
vitalnormativityisguidedbyanintrinsicvalueoflife‐itsownperpetuationand
maximisation‐thebiopoliticalnormissecuredbyexternalapparatuses,andthe
valuewhichdirectstheirapplication‐fosteringtheproductivepotentialofthe
population‐issociallyconstructed.Thus,intheconceptofbiopoliticsthe
internaldynamicofvitalnormativityistransposedintotheexternalityof
biopoliticalnormalisation(Muhle,2007:232).Contrarytodiscipline,biopolitical
normalisationdoesnotpositanidealnormwhichissubsequentlytrainedinto
18
theindividualsubject4butratherregistersdifferentdistributionsofphenomena
withindifferentsegmentsofthepopulationthroughtheapplicationofstatistics.
Theseempiricallyoccurringdifferentialnormsarethenrelatedtoeachother
and,subsequently,biopoliticalregulationseeksto“bringthemostunfavourable
inlinewiththemostfavourable“(Foucault,2007:63).Hence,thebiopolitical
“normisaninterplayofdifferentialnormalities“(Foucault,2007:63)withina
multiplicityofindividualsunderstoodasalivingpopulationthatbringsforthits
ownnorms.
Inthissense,thesocialisnotsimplyunderstoodasanalogoustoanorganism.
Ratherthanthat,aspecificunderstandingofthedynamicdevelopmentoflifeis
incorporatedintotherationalityandtechnologiesofpowerwhichnowactupon
aggregatephenomenabyinfluencingthemilieuwithinwhichthepopulation
developsthesephenomena.Thesetechnologiesallowfordeviationtoacertain
extent,andarefuture‐orientedinthesenseofsecuringthehomeostasisofthe
social.Inshort,thebiosinbiopowercanbereadassignifyingthatnotonlydoes
lifebecomethereferentofpowerbutalsothat“thesocialderivesitsfunctional
modelfromthevital“(Muhle,2007:233;author’stranslation).
Consequently,thesecurityapparatusastheparadigmatictechniqueofbiopower
registersthepopulationasalivingentitysubjecttoquasi‐naturalregularities
andprocesses,andseekstoregulatetheseprocessesbyinterveningonthe
conditionswithinwhichtheyoccur.Thepopulation,then,nolongerappearsasa
multiplicityofsubjectsbut“asasetofprocessestobemanagedattheleveland
4Infact,thisstaticsubsumptionunderanexternalnormwouldbepathologicalinCanguilhem’ssenseoftheterm.
19
onthebasisofwhatisnaturalintheseprocesses“(Foucault,2007:70).Foucault
discussesthesignificanceoftheemergenceofthepopulationinthecontextof
thenotionofmilieu:
Themilieuisasetofnaturalgivens...andasetofartificialgivens...acertain
numberofcombined,overalleffectsbearingonallwholiveinit.Itisanelement
inwhichacircularlinkisproducedbetweeneffectsandcauses,sinceaneffect
fromonepointofviewwillbeacausefromanother(Foucault,2007:21)
FoucaultsituatestheemergenceofthenotionofmilieubothinNewtonian
physicsandLamarckianbiology(Foucault,2007:20).AsCanguilhem(2008)
elaborates,themilieuisaconceptwithwhichthelivingorganism’sspecific
situatednessintheenvironmentcametobeexplained,andwhichunderwent
varioussemantictransformations.Fromanetherealfluidassumedtoexplainthe
problemofactionfromadistanceinNewtonianphysics,themilieulatercameto
beknowninbiologyasaconcepttoaccountforthecausalrelationbetween
organicchangeandphysicalenvironment.Forinstance,inLamarckitisthe
organism’sneedwhichmediatestheenvironment’sinfluenceontheorganism’s
evolution.InDarwin,thereexistsaprimarymilieuwhichisthatofthe“relation
ofonelivingbeingtoothers“(Canguilhem,2008:105)andwhichprecedesthe
geographicalmilieuinitsfunctionofselection.Throughoutitsvarious
permutations,themilieufiguredinearlybiologicaldiscourseasthesumof
environmentalcircumstanceswhichexertaninfluenceuponthedevelopmentof
life.ForFoucault,then,throughactinguponthemilieuwithinwhich“artifice
functionsasanatureinrelationtoapopulationthat,whilebeingwovenfrom
socialandpoliticalrelations,alsofunctionsasaspecies“(Foucault,2007:22)the
populationasanentitysubjecttothecharacteristicsoflifeisbothproducedand
20
governedbythesecurityapparatus.InasimilarsenseinwhichDarwinist
biologyunderstandsthepopulationas“theelementthroughwhichthemilieu
producesitseffectsontheorganism“(Foucault,2007:78)thebiopolitical
interventiononthelevelofthemilieusignifiestheentryofspecies‐lifeintothe
techniquesofgovernment:
Themilieuappearsasafieldofinterventioninwhich,insteadofaffecting
individuals...onetriestoaffect,precisely,apopulation.Imeanamultiplicityof
individualswhoareandfundamentallyandessentiallyonlyexistbiologically
boundtothematerialitywithinwhichtheylive(Foucault,2007:21)
Foucaultarguesthatthisinterventionofthesecurityapparatusconsistsof
organisingsystemsofcirculationswithinthepopulation.Intheexamplesof
town,scarcity,andepidemicsthatFoucaultdiscusses,securityisawayof
allowingcirculationstotakeplace,ofcontrollingthem,siftingthegoodandthe
bad,ensuringthatthingsarealwaysinmovement,constantlymovingaround,
continuouslygoingfromonepointtoanother,butinsuchawaythatthe
inherentdangersofthiscirculationarecancelledout(Foucault.2007:65).
Thesecurityapparatus’workofenablingpositivecirculationstiesintoan
emergingknowledgeofcontrolcircuits.Foucaultdiscussestheemerging
politico‐economicrationalityofthePhysiocratsasparadigmaticforthe
functioningofthesecurityapparatus.Confrontedwithrecurringcatastrophic
foodscarcities,theirpoliciesoflaissezfaireconsistedinremovingpricecontrols,
prohibitionsofhoarding,andotherbarrierstofreetradeandtherefore
establishingwhatcouldbedescribedasnegativefeedbackmechanismsante
litteramwhichweremeanttostabilisethemarketinastateofhomeostasis
21
(Foucault,2007:37).Inthissense,bothinspatialplanning,economics,and
medicine,thesecurityapparatusworksto
establishanequilibrium,maintainanaverage,establishasortofhomeostasis,
andcompensateforvariationswithinthisgeneralpopulationanditsaleatory
field(Foucault,2004:241)
ItisnocoincidencethatFoucaultframesthefunctionalityofthesecurity
apparatusintermsalludingtotheterminologyofcybernetics.AsJosephVogl
(2004)notes,thenotionsofself‐regulationandcircularcausalityemergedin
theirearlyformswithindifferentfieldsofknowledgepreciselyatthesametime
forwhichFoucaultdescribestheemergenceofbiopower.Forinstance,in
Malthus’writingsonthepopulation,thecausalrelationbetweenpopulationsize,
wagesandfoodproductionleadstoself‐regulatingcyclesofpopulationgrowth,
foodpricesandwagelevels.Similarly,thecentrifugalgovernorinventedby
JamesWattin1788regulatesthespeedofthesteammachinewithanegative
feedbackmechanism(Vogl,2004:74‐77).OttoMayr(1986)arguesthat
equilibriumandbalanceasleadingmetaphorsofhistoricalliberalismeventually
evolvedintoconceptssuchasself‐regulationandfeedbackcontrol.Clearly
resonatingwiththeideaofaninvisiblehandorganisingequilibriumwithout
centralcommandstructures,technicalfeedbackmechanismsgainedprominence
andwidespreadapplicationatthesametimeasliberalpoliticaleconomy
betweenthe18thand19thcentury,eventhoughsuchmechanismshadbeen
knownsinceantiquity(Mayr,1986:xvi).Hence,acrossdifferentfieldsof
knowledge–fromengineeringtopoliticaleconomy‐apre‐cybernetic
understandingofcircularcausalityandself‐regulatoryprocessesemergedthat
22
troubledlinearmechanisticcausality,andledtoaturntowardstheliving
organismasamodelforunderstandingprocessesobservedelsewhere:
Assuch,theorganismisnotapoliticalmetaphor.Thatthenotionofthe
organismwasinsuchgreatdemandisduetoitsbeingananswertothequestion
ofhowtoarriveatasystematiccoincidenceofdynamicprocessesandstable
structures...Hence,around1800apoliticalmodelofregulationemergedin
whichthegovernmentalknowledgeofEnlightenmentandtheprinciplesof
indirectgoverningtransformedthemselvesintotheobservationofcontrol
circuitsandself‐regulatoryprocesses(Vogl,2004:78;author’stranslation)
Insummary,biopowerneedstobeunderstoodinthecontextofanepistemein
whichlifeisatstakeasanobjectofknowledge,signifyingphenomenaof
normalisation,self‐regulation,andhomeostasis.Biopower,then,referstothelife
ofpopulationsnotonlybytakinglifeasitsobjectbutalsobyincorporatinga
specificknowledgeofthedynamicsofbiologicallifeintoitsbiopolitical
mechanisms,thusactingupontheconditionswithinwhichapopulationexistsin
ordertosecureastateofhomeostaticequilibrium.
2.4 Cyborg life
AsSarahFranklin(2000)notes,thegeneticisationofbiologyinthe20thcentury
eventuallybroughtforthareductionistparadigmwhereinlifewouldfigureas
unambiguousinformationalprocessesembodiedinthegeneticcode,thusgiving
waytoitsinstrumentalisation:
naturebecomesbiologybecomesgenetics,throughwhichlifeitselfbecomes
reprogrammableinformation(Franklin,2000:190)
23
LilyKay(2000)attributesthisreconceptualisationofthefundamentalprocesses
oflifeintermsofinformationtothegrowinginfluenceofcyberneticsasameta‐
scienceduringandaftertheSecondWorldWar.Themathematicaltheoryof
informationandsystemsthinking,togetherwiththepracticesofelectronic
computing,servedtocreatearepresentationalspaceinwhichthegeneticcode
wouldfigureas“thesiteoflife’scommandandcontrol“(Kay,2000:5).Although
notunproblematicallyandnotwithoutcontestation,biologistseventually
adoptedthemetaphorsandmethodsofinformationdiscourseandstarted
representinggeneticprocessesasgoal‐directedcomputerprograms,and
organismsasself‐regulatingcommunicationnetworksorcyberneticsystems
(Kay,2000:17).Clearly,thisuptakeofinformationalmetaphorsinbiologywas
helpedbyeminentcyberneticianNorbertWiener’sfunctionalanalogyofliving
entitiesandcertainmachinesasbothentropy‐resistingformsoforganisation
governedbyfeedbackmechanisms(Wiener,1989:26).However,Kaycarefully
distinguishesbetweeninformationtheoryandinformationdiscourse,thelatter
beingunderstoodasa“large‐scalescientificandculturalshiftinrepresentation“
(Kay,2000:16)affectingnotonlythelifesciencesbutalsosociologicalandother
discourses.Whereasapplicationsofthemathematicaltheoryofinformationand
systemicmodelsinbiologyoftenencounteredseriousconceptualandpractical
limitations,theinformationalmetaphorneverthelessfacilitatedproductive
interactionsbetweendifferentfieldsofknowledgeandthusorganisedasystem
ofrepresentationthateventuallyrecastvitalprocessesintermsof“information,
texts,codes,cyberneticsystems,programs,instructions,alphabets,words“(Kay,
2000:26).Thisnewlyinformationalisedknowledgeoflifetiedintoawiderpost‐
wardiscourseon“automatedcommunicationsystemsasawayof
24
conceptualisingandmanagingnatureandsociety“(Kay,2000:127).Cybernetics
meshedbiologicalmeaning‐makingwithaspecificnexusofknowledgeand
powerpertinenttothesocialwherein
controlwasabstractedanddiffused:itwasnotathingbutamanifestation;nota
modeofdecisionbutaprocesspervadingthewholesystem...controlsystems
wasredefiningthemeaningofsocialandbiologicalphenomena(Kay,2000:85‐
6;emphasisadded)
RichardDoyle(1997)highlightstheelisionoftheembodiedorganismwithinthis
shiftfromthemodernistbiologicalparadigmdescribedbyFoucaultand
Canguilhemtowardsapostvitalparadigmthatrestsupontheinformational
metaphorofthegeneticcode.Life,then,wouldnolongerfigureasthe
“subterraneanwarmththatcirculates“(Foucault,2002:138)betweenliving
things;rather,itselusivecharacterwastobefinallyreducedto,aswellas
resolvedin,attemptstowardscompletedescriptionsofinformationstoredin
geneticcodes.Hence,thelivingorganismwhose‘interest’initsconditionsof
existencestillfiguredasthedrivingforceofvitalnormativityinCanguilhem’s
writings“isnothingbutcoding“(Doyle,1997:17).
Thisdestabilisationoftheboundarybetweenbiologyandinformation
technology,natureandculture,leadsDonnaHaraway(1990)tocallforacyborg
politics.ForHaraway,thefigureofthecyborgservestointerveneinasocial
realitywhere“couplingsbetweenmachineandorganism,eachconceivedas
codeddevices“(1990:191)entailareconsiderationofbiopoliticswithin
technologicallymediatedsocieties:
25
Ourdominationsdon’tworkbymedicalisationandnormalisationanymore,they
workbynetworking,communicationsredesign,stressmanagement.
Normalisationgiveswaytoautomation...thediscourseofbiopoliticsgivesway
totechnobabble(Haraway,1990:194)
Astheboundarybetweenmachineandorganismhasbeenmadeirrevocably
ambiguous,thefigureofthecyborgfocusesattentiononanew“informaticsof
domination“(Haraway,1990:203)whereinthestrategiesofpowerareno
longerbasedonthe“integrityofnaturalobjects“(Haraway,1990:204)but
ratherregulateflowsacrosssystemsofcommunication.
2.5 Vital complexity
NikolasRose(2007)maintainsthattheresultsofthesequencingofthehuman
genomeattheturnofthemillenniummarkedalimitationoftheinformational
metaphor,andeventuallyledtoamoveawayfromthelineardeterminist
paradigmof20thcenturygeneticstowardsacontemporarypostgenomic
understandingoflife.Thepropositionthat“life‐as‐information“hasreplaced
“lifeasorganicunity“(Rose,2007:45)nolongerholds,Roseargues,ratherthan
thatcontemporarymolecularbiologyisshiftingfromgeneticreductionism
shapedbyadoctrineofone‐wayflowofinformation(fromDNAtoRNAto
protein)towardsa
postgenomicemphasisoncomplexities,interactions,developmentalsequences,
andcascadesofregulationinteractingbackandforthatvariouspointsinthe
metabolicpathwaysthatleadtothesynthesisofenzymesandproteins.Andin
theprocessinformationalepistemologiesseemtohavereachedtheirlimit;they
26
cannolongercapturewhatresearchersdoastheyrepresentandintervenein
thevitalcomplexitiesthatconstitutelifeatamolecularlevel(Rose,2007:47)
Yetthisisnottosaythatcybernetics’influenceonthediscourseofbiologyhas
vanished.Rose(2007:48)maintainsthatsimulationtechniquesandsystemic
metaphorsderivedfromcyberneticsenablecontemporaryexplanationsinthe
lifesciencesthatstressthenon‐deterministic,complexnatureoflivingsystems.
Theheavilycomputer‐dependentmodellingapproachesofsystemsbiology
whichseektounderstandemergentpropertiesoflivingsystems,then,canbe
understoodasparadigmaticfortheconstructionofpostgenomicknowledgesof
lifethatarenolongerrootedintheorganismbutturntowards“simulationsof
dynamic,complex,opensystems“inorderto“predictfuturevitalstatesand
hencetoenableinterventionintothosevitalsystemstoreshapethosefutures“
(Rose,2007:16).Rosearguesthatundertheemergentregimeofbiopower,vital
normativity“onceconsideredtobeinscribedintothelawsoforganiclife“(Rose,
2007:81)losesitsprecedence.Representedinsimulations,lifeatthemolecular
levelisthoroughlyopeneduptomanipulation,andcontemporarybiopolitics
seekto“bringapotentialunwantedfutureintothepresentandmakeit
calculable“(Rose,2007:86).5
Hence,complexityframeworksareinfluencingtheconstitutionofcontemporary
knowledgesoflife.Ratherthanaunifiedandhomogeneoustheory,complexity
denotesasetofinterdisciplinaryscientificapproachesandconcernswithshared
rootsincyberneticsandsystemstheory,whichseektodescribeandunderstand
5However,Rosemaintainsanunderstandingofbiopoliticsthatpertainsprimarilytothesomaticandmentionsthisrationalityinthecontextofthenotionofsusceptibilityin
genomicmedicine(Rose,2007:86).
27
thecommonpropertiesofcomplexsystemsfoundacrossphysics,biology,
economics,sociologyandotherfields.InthewordsofMelanieMitchell,professor
atthecomplexityresearchcentreSantaFeInstitute,acomplexsystemcanbe
broadlyunderstoodas
asysteminwhichlargenetworksofcomponentswithnocentralcontroland
simplerulesofoperationgiverisetocomplexcollectivebehaviour,sophisticated
informationprocessing,andadaptationvialearningorevolution...asystemthat
exhibitsnontrivialemergentandself‐organisingbehaviours(Mitchell,2009:13)
Self‐organisationdescribeshow“organisedbehaviourariseswithoutaninternal
orexternalcontroller“(Mitchell,2009:13)withincomplexsystems,andis
observedwithinorganismsandpopulationsbutalsousedtoexplainphysical,
social,andtechnicalstructures.Closelyrelated,theterm“emergence”denotes
how“simplerulesproducecomplexbehaviourinhard‐to‐predictways“
(Mitchell,2009:13).Rejectingareductionistapproachthatwouldexplainthe
behaviourofasystemviaamorecompletedescriptionofitssinglecomponents,
researchonemergencefocusesonhowiterativeinteractionsbetweenalarge
numberofcomponentsproducepatternsoforganisationonamacroscale
(Mitchell,2009:149).Forinstance,cellularautomata,simulationsconsistingofa
gridofcellswhereeachcell’sstateisdependentonthestateofitsimmediate
neighboursaccordingtoacellupdaterule,areusedtodemonstratetheself‐
organisedemergenceofstructuralpatternsovertime.Workoncellular
automatahasauthorisedassertionsthatbiologicalprocessesneedtobe
understoodasaformofinformationprocessing,ifnotcomputation(Mitchell,
2009:157).
28
Drawingonhisworkongeneticregulatorynetworks,biologistandcomplexity
theoristStuartKauffman(1995)arguesforemergenceasthefundamentalliving
process.InKauffman’saccount,thetheoryofself‐organisationfiguresasa
candidatefora“deeptheoryofbiologicalorder“(Kauffman,1995:18)which
supplementstheevolutionaryhistoryofratheraccidentalvariationandselection
withafundamentallawinvokingacertainnecessityforlifetoexist:
Life,inthisview,isanemergentphenomenonarisingasthemoleculardiversity
ofaprebioticchemicalsystemincreasesbeyondathresholdofcomplexity.If
true,thenlifeisnotlocatedinthepropertyofanysinglemolecule‐inthedetails
‐butisacollectivepropertyofsystemsofinteractingmolecules...Life,inthis
view,isnottobelocatedinitsparts,butinthecollectiveemergentpropertiesof
thewholetheycreate(Kauffman,1995:24)
Hence,emergencedisplacesevolutionasthefundamentalprocessoftheliving:
logicallypriortovariationandselection,organisationemergesspontaneously,
andevolutionsubsequentlyselectsfavourableformsoforganisation(Kauffman,
1995:9).Kauffmaniscreditedwiththewell‐knownadage“lifeexistsattheedge
ofchaos“(Kauffman,1995:26)meaningthehypothesisthatevolutionfavours
livingsystemswhichexistinatransitorystatebetweenorderanddisorder,with
justtherightamountoforganisationtoadapttoenvironmentalperturbations.
Complexsystemsexhibitnonlineardynamics,i.e.disproportionalrelations
betweencausesandeffects:small,localfluctuationscanleadtounpredictable
changesintheorganisationoftheoverallsystemwhicheitherachievesahigher,
ordifferent,formoforganisationorslipsintodisorder.IlyaPrigogineand
IsabelleStengersmaintainthat“nonlinearreactions...arevirtuallytheruleasfar
aslivingsystemsareconcerned“(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:153).ForPrigogine
29
andStengers,thenonlineardynamicsembodiedinthecomplexinterplay
betweenautocatalytic,crosscatalytic,andinhibitoryprocessesregulating
metabolismatthemolecularlevelserveasamodelfortheoverall“functional
logicofbiologicalsystems“(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:154).Crucially,this
perspectiveentailsashiftawayfromhomeostasistowardsanotionoflifethat
stresses“theinstabilitiesthatmayoccurinfar‐from‐equilibriumconditions“6
(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:154)throughthenonlinearamplificationofminor
fluctuationsaffectingthesystem.
Furthermore,researchonscale‐freenetworks,i.e.networkswhosedistribution
ofnodesandlinksadherestoapower‐law,7hasledtotheassertionthat,in
general,evolutionfavoursthedevelopmentofscale‐freenetworksbecauseof
theirresilientproperties,i.e.theircharacteristicthatafailureofrandomnodes
doesnotthreatenthefunctionalityoftheoverallnetwork(Mitchell,2009:248).8
Withinbiology,scale‐freenetworksareunderstoodtoensuretherobustnessof
metabolicpathways,brainfunction,andgeneticregulation(Mitchell,2009:249‐
251).Acrossbiological,social,andtechnicalnetworks“many–perhapsmost–
6Withinthermodynamics,far‐from‐equilibriumsystemsaresystemswhichexchangeenergywiththeirenvironment.PrigogineandStengersmaintainthatlivingsystemsare
necessarilyfar‐from‐equilibriumsystems(Priogine/Stengers,1984:175).
7Scale‐freenetworksareconstitutedofasmallnumberofnodeswithalargenumberofedges(i.e.hubs)andalargenumberofnodeswithasmallnumberofedges.Hence,
contrarytoaGaussianornormaldistributionwherethedistributionofevents(here:
numberofnodes/numberofedges)clustersaroundameanvalueproducingabell‐
shapedgraph,apower‐lawdistributionproducesalong‐tailgraph.
8Theemphasishereisonrandom,sinceafailureofoneofthesmallnumberofnodeswithahighdegreeofedgesislessprobablethanthefailureofoneofthevastnumberof
nodeswithalowdegreeofedges.
30
real‐worldnetworksthathavebeenstudiedseemtobescale‐free;thatis,they
havepower‐lawratherthanGaussiandegreedistributions“(Mitchell,2006:
1198).
However,thespreadofcomplexitymetaphorsintobiologicalpracticesof
knowledge‐makingisnotentirelyuncontested.Forinstance,EvelynFoxKeller
doubtsthe“generalityofscale‐freenetworks“(2005:1060)asauniversal
principleofnature.Demonstratingtheeasewithwhichreal‐worldnetworkscan
berepresentedbothasadheringtoscale‐freeandotherdistributions,Keller
cautionsagainsttooquickanabstractionfromthespecificityofthephenomenon
studied,andanoverlyenthusiasticembraceofcomplexitytheoriesinbiology
(Keller,2005:1066).However,giventheexplosionofdataaboutmolecular
processes,Kellernotesthat“forthefirsttimeinrecenthistory,biologistshave
strongincentivestowelcomethecooperationofphysicalandmathematical
scientists“(Keller,2005:1067).Yetcontrarytothephysicist’surgetoposit
fundamentallaws,Kellermaintainsthat
whatisfundamentalinbiology...isfarmorelikelytobefoundintheaccidental
particularitiesofbiologicalstructurearisingearlyinevolution...thaninany
abstractorsimplelaws(Keller,2005:1067).
Moreover,inthecontextofexplainingprocessesoflifeasaformofcomputation,
Mitchellconcedesthatexactlywhatconstitutesinformationandprocessing
withinbiologicalphenomena“tendstobeill‐defined“(Mitchell,2009:169).To
her,complexityprovidesfirstandforemostacommonlanguagetofacilitate
exchangeandcollaborationacrossdisciplinaryboundaries(Mitchell,2009:252).
31
Insummary,contemporaryknowledgeoflifediffersfromtheknowledgeoflife
underlyingFocuault’shistoricalanalysisofbiopoweratthethresholdof
modernity.Thoroughlyinformationalisedandopeneduptorepresentationand
manipulationbyacomputationaltechnologyfromwhichitinsomecases
becomesdiscursivelyindistinguishable,contemporarylifeitselfisexplainedat
theintersectionofbiologyandcomplexityasemergentorganisationwithin
nonlinear,networkedsystemswhichexistattheedgeofdisorder.Thisisnotto
saythatthelifesciencesareahomogeneousdiscourse,andthatthisspecific
knowledgeoflifewouldgouncontested.However,asbothRose(2007)and
Haraway(1990)suggest,anattemptatunderstandingcontemporarybiopolitics
needstotakeintoaccountthetransformationsthattheknowledgeoflifehas
undergone.
32
3. Methodology
Consideringthatbiopowerdenotesanexusofpowerandknowledgepredicated
onlife,IwilldrawonFoucault’snotionofcritiqueinordertoinvestigatethe
mutualsupportofsystemsofknowledgeandtechnologiesofpower.Following
Foucault,critiqueisapracticeinformedbythedesire
nottobegovernedlikethat,inthenameofthoseprinciples,withsuchandsuch
anobjectiveinmindandbymeansofsuchprocedures,notlikethat,notforthat,
notbythem(Foucault,2007a:44)
Offeringacritique,then,alwaysalreadyexistsinarelationtoanestablished
regimeofpower.Yetcriticismisnotlimitedtoinvalidatingspecificpracticesof
government.Byencompassingthedescriptionandproblematisationofthevery
fieldcircumscribedbythemutualstabilisationofsystemsofknowledgeand
mechanismsofpower,withinwhichaspecificcritiquecanbearticulatedand
madeintelligible,critiquecanofferawiderperspectiveontransformation:
anexusofknowledge‐powerhastobedescribedsothatwecangraspwhat
constitutestheacceptabilityofasystem(Foucault,2007a:61)
However,inmycasestudyIwillaskhowbiopowerfigureswithinaspecific
technoscientificapparatusthathasyettomaterialise.Consideringitsemphasis
ondevelopingnewtechnologiesaswellasaimingtomanipulateandtransform
itsobjectofknowledgethroughthesetechnologies,FuturICTcanbeunderstood
asanexemplarytechnoscientificendeavourinPaulRabinow’ssenseoftheterm:
Representingandintervening,knowledgeandpower,understandingand
reform,arebuiltin,fromthestart,assimultaneousgoalsandmeans(Rabinow,
1992:236)
33
InDonnaHaraway'srenderingofthenotionoftechnoscience,thissenseofa
confluenceoftechnologyandsciencepersists,yetshestressesthe
discontinuitiesofthepresentmomentwheresomeofthedefiningbinary
dichotomiesofmodernityaredestabilised:
Technoscienceextravagantlyexceedsthedistinctionbetweenscienceand
technologyaswellasthosebetweennatureandsociety,subjectsandobjects,
andthenaturalandtheartifactualthatstructuredtheimaginarytimecalled
modernity(Haraway,1997:3‐4)
ForDonnaHaraway,acritiqueofcontemporaryscienceandtechnology
engendersunderstandingthemasculturalpracticesandthusfocusingattention
onthe“metaphors,images,narrativestrategies”(Haraway,2004:332)thatrun
throughthetechnosciences.Harawaydoesnotaffirmthedistinctionsbetween
“scienceandpolitics,orscienceandsociety,orscienceandculture”(Haraway,
1997:62).Ratherthanthat,sheseekstoavoidreductiontoeitherofthese
categoriesanddemonstratehowtheyaremutuallyimplicatedintechnoscience’s
productionof“whatwillcountasnatureandasmattersoffact”(Haraway,1997:
50).However,acknowledgingthetransformationsbroughtuponthepresent
momentbythetechnosciences,Harawaydoesnotofferapurelynegative
critique,butleveragestheculturaldimensionoftechnoscienceinordertoinvent
counter‐narrativessuchasthefigureofthecyborgthatmighthelptoimagine
differentwaysofinhabitingtheworld(Haraway,1990).Hence,understanding
FuturICTasatechnoscientificendeavourwhichisinflectedwithabiopolitical
projectofgoverninglivingbeingsyetwhichexistsatthemomentexclusivelyin
discursiveform,IadoptaFoucaultianapproachtocritique,supplementedby
DonnaHaraway’sapproachtothetechnosciencesthatfocusesattentionon
34
narrative,metaphor,andthetransformativepotentialofpolyphonyinmy
analysesofthetextualandvisualmaterialswhichmakeupandsurroundthe
FuturICTproposal.
35
4. Case study: governing life in FuturICT
4.1 FuturICT, big data and the technological zone
FuturICTisanongoingproposalforalarge‐scale,long‐termresearchproject
withintheFutureandEmergingTechnologies(FET)programmeoftheEuropean
Union.Fusingcomplexityscience,socialscience,andinformationand
communicationtechnologies,FuturICTaimstoleveragereal‐timedatafromthe
internetinordertosimulatemacrosocialprocesses,thusproviding
“probabilisticshort‐termforecastssimilartoweatherforecasts“forglobalsocial
andeconomicdevelopments(FuturICT,2012:21).LedbyprofessorsDirk
HelbingandStevenBishopofETHZürichandUCLrespectively,andinvolvinga
rangeofotherEuropeanresearchinstitutions,FuturICTwaseventuallyselected
in2011asacandidateflagshipprojectoftheFETprogrammewhichpromotes
“long‐termhigh‐riskresearch,offsetbypotentialbreakthroughswithahigh
technologicalorsocietalimpact“(EuropeanCommission,2011:6).Thus,
FuturICTiscurrentlycompetinginamulti‐stageselectionprocessforlong‐term
fundingover10yearswithabudgetofupto100millioneurosperyear
(EuropeanCommission,2011:9).ThedecisionastowhetherFuturICTwillbe
fundedbytheEuropeanUnionhasyettobemade,however,theproposalhas
alreadygeneratedconsiderableresonanceinthemedia(FuturICT,2012a).
Theprojectisrootedinthequantitativetraditionofthesocialscienceswhich
aimstomathematicallymodelsocialprocesses,particularlyinthecomputational
approach,whichheavilyreliesoncomputertechnologyinordertosimulatethe
emergenceofmacrophenomenafrominteractionsbetweenagentsatthemicro
level(Humphreys,2002:180).However,initsattempttosimulateemergent
36
organisationtheprojectalsointersectswiththescientificprogrammeand
culturaldiscourseofartificiallife(Kember,2003).
Specifically,theproposedresearchprojectconsistsofdevelopingthree
interlinkedcomponents:theLivingEarthSimulator,thePlanetaryNervous
System,andtheGlobalParticipatoryPlatform(FuturICT,2012:16).TheLiving
EarthSimulatorismeantto“enabletheexplorationoffuturescenarios“
(FuturICT,2012:18)throughtheapplicationofagent‐basedsimulationand
othermodellingmethods,servingeventuallyasa“PolicyWindTunnel“
(FuturICT,2012:14)wheredifferentpoliticaldecisionscanbetestedinadvance
regardingtheirprobableimpactonsociety.Tothiseffect,thesimulations
integratedatafromthePlanetaryNervousSystemasa“globalsensornetwork...
abletoprovidedatainreal‐timeaboutsocio‐economic,environmentalor
technologicalsystems“(FuturICT,2012:18).Finally,theGlobalParticipatory
Platformismeanttoenableparticipationofthepublicintheprojectandits
simulations,e.g.throughtakingpartin“seriousmulti‐playeronlinegames“
(FuturICT,2012:18)whichsupplementthemodels.
TheFuturICTprojectissituatedwithinanongoingdiscourseontheso‐calledbig
dataphenomenon,i.e.theincreasingavailabilityoflargeandreal‐timedatasets
aboutthebehaviourofhuman,environmentalandtechnicalsystemsduetoan
increasingdigitalmediationofsocialprocessesandthespreadofsensorand
trackingtechnologies,aswellasconsiderablegrowthincomputinganddata
analysiscapabilities.Forinstance,arecentstudybymanagementconsultancy
McKinsey(2011:17)claimsasharpincreaseindigitallystoreddatafrom50
37
exabytesin2000to300exabytes9in2007withanestimatedannualgrowthrate
projectedat40%forthenearfuture.Sincethedatainquestionarecurrently
amassedtoagreatextentbyprivateentities,andtheadvancedstorageand
analysistechniquesfiguringunderbigdataaredevelopedmainlybybusinesses
suchasGoogleandAmazon,thereisanongoingdebateaboutpossible
consequencesofthe“datadeluge“(Economist,2010)andwhetherthereisa
needforregulationregardingissuesofprivacyandaccesstoaswellas
ownershipoverdata(Bollier,2010).
Inthecontextofthisdiscourseonbigdata,anumberofsocialscientistsinitiated
adebateregardingtheneedforestablishingacomputationalsocialscience“that
leveragesthecapacitytocollectandanalyzedatawithanunprecedented
breadthanddepthandscale“(Lazeretal.,2009:3).Aimingforestablishingbig
dataresearchbeyondtheconfinesofcorporateresearchanddevelopment,the
callbroachestopicssuchasprivacyregulations,researchethics,proprietaryand
opendataandnecessaryinfrastructures,andcallsforestablishingsharednorms
andstandardsintheresearchcommunity.10Here,thenotionofthetechnological
zonedevelopedbyAndrewBarry(2006)canhelptoexplainsomedynamicsof
thegovernmentoftechnoscientificpractices.Barryunderstandsthe
technologicalzoneas“aspacewithinwhichdifferencesbetweentechnical
practices,proceduresorformshavebeenreduced,orcommonstandardshave
9Oneexabyteare1000000000gigabytesor1018bytes.
10PerhapstheinterestofLazeretal.(2009)insecuringaccesstothebehaviouraldatacurrentlyamassedneedstobeunderstoodinthecontextofbigdata’spresumed
potentialtoprovidearemedyforcomputationalsocialscience’straditionallackof
reliablereal‐worlddata(Humphreys,2002:171).
38
beenestablished“(Barry,2006:239).Strategicallyimportantforfostering
researchanddevelopmentandensuringindustrydevelopmentaswellasshared
andacceptedgovernmentalpractices,thetechnologicalzonenotonlyarticulates
asetoftechnicalpracticeswithincertainspatialboundariesbutalsopolitical,
legal,market‐orientedandmoralconsiderationsofavarietyofactors(Barry,
2006:243).
TheFuturICTproposal,then,explicitlyanswersthecallforabigdata‐oriented
computationalsocialsciencebyLazeretal.(2009)andpromisestodevelop
standards,techniquesandregulationstoconstructaframeworkforresearch
thatconsidersbothprivacyandintellectualpropertyissues,administrative
utility,andbusinessopportunitiesrelatedtobigdatawithinEurope(Bishopet
al.,2011:37).Alongsideensuringthetechnicalinteroperabilityofbigdata
research,theprojectseeksto“establishethicalstandardsincooperationswith
businessandotherpartners“(Helbingetal.,2011:169)aswellas“develop
privacy‐respectingdatamining[and]carryoutethicalresearchanddevelop
technologiesthatincreasepossibilitiesforcitizenstoparticipateinthesocial,
politicalandeconomicsystem“(Helbingetal.,2011:168).Negotiatingthe
variouspolitical,social,andeconomicforceswithwhichtheprojectisentangled
throughanemphasisonethicalandtechnologicalstandards,FuturICTcanbe
understoodastakingpartintheconstructionofaEuropeantechnologicalzone
duringthe“limitedwindowofopportunitywithinwhichsignificantdecisions
canbetaken”(Barry,2006:242),whichopenswiththeemergenceofnewand
scarcelyregulatedtechnologicalpracticessuchasthosesurroundingthemining
andanalysisofbigdata.
39
4.2 “Simulating life on Earth and everything it relates to“
AcentralcomponentoftheFuturICTprojectistheproposaltocreatea“Living
EarthSimulator“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:75),thatis,asupercomputing‐
assisted,integratedsimulationofsocial,economic,andothernestedand
interactingsystemsonaglobalscale.Inordertocreatethissimulator,Helbing
andBalietticallforatransferofmethodsandapproachesfrombothphysicsand
biologytothesocialsciences,referringtoattemptstomodelsocialphenomena
suchastraffic,evacuationscenarios,marketsandmigrationwithtechnologies
derivedfromthenaturalsciences(2011a:74‐5).Inparticular,theauthorscall
forlearningfromthosefieldsofbiologywhichareconcernedwiththe
"organizationofsocialspecies,theimmuneandneuralsystems,etc."
(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:85)whicharethebiologicalreal‐worldnetworks
commonlystudiedbycomplexityscientists(Mitchell,2009:169).Considering
thatcomplexitytheoriesprovideexplanationsforbothnaturalandsocial
phenomena,HelbingandBaliettiarguethatthetransferofsupercomputing
methodsfromthenaturalsciencestothesocialsciencesisjustamatteroftime:
Itappearslogicalthatsupercomputingwillbeultimatelymovingonfrom
applicationsinthenaturalandengineeringsciencestothesimulationofsocial
andeconomicsystems,asmoreandmorecomplexsystemsbecome
understandableandtherequireddatabecomeavailable.Itisobviousthatvirtual
three‐dimensionalworldsarewaitingtobefilledwithlife(Helbing/Balietti,
2011a:75)
ThevirtualworldoftheLivingEarthSimulatorwillbepopulatedwithartificial
agentsfromwhoserepeatedlocalinteractionssocialstructuresemergeover
40
timeatthemacrolevel.Agent‐basedmodellingisconsideredashaving
reinvigoratedmathematicalmodellinginthesocialsciences(Helbing/Balietti,
2011a:72).Withinagent‐basedmodelling,"agentscanrepresentindividuals,
groups,organizations,companiesetc."(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:72)whose
characteristics,althoughmethodologicallybasedonindividualism,pointbeyond
therationalactorconventionallyassumedbyliberalpoliticaleconomy,andtake
intoaccountbehavioural,psychological,andemotionalfactorsaswell
(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:77).Crucially,thefocusisonthemacrolevelofan
aggregateofagentsinteractingovertime,thusallowingforthestudyof
nonlinearbehaviouremergingfromthebottomupratherthanconstructinga
modelfromtop‐down:
Bymodellingtherelationshiponthelevelofindividualsinarule‐basedway...
agent‐basedsimulationsallowpeculiarfeaturesofasystemtoemergewithouta
prioriassumptionsonglobalproperties(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:73)
Integratingthebehaviouraldatagatheredundertherubricofbigdatawith
agent‐basedmodelling,theauthorshopetobuilda“global‐scalesuper
simulator“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:77)whichismeanttomovebeyondthe
studyofdistinctsystemstowardsanexpresslyholisticview,thuscreatinga
"LivingEarthSimulatortosimulatetheentireglobe,includingallthediverse
interactionsofsocialsystemsandoftheeconomywithourenvironment"
(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:75‐6).Consequently,theprocesstobesimulated‐that
is,theobjectofknowledge‐figuresasnolessthan"lifeonEarthandeverything
itrelatesto"(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:76).
41
Thisratherfar‐reachingclaimtosimulatelifeonEarthcarriesasemantic
dimensionbeyondacolloquialunderstandingof‘life’.Specifically,thisclaimis
authorisedbyadiscourseonartificiallifewhichextendsthenotionoflifeto
includesocialandartificialsystems,andreformulatesthequestionofwhat
constitutesbeingalivetoaquestionofformindependentofmatterbystressing
thethemeofemergence.KatherineHaylesunderstandsartificiallifeasa
discoursewhichformspartofathirdwaveofcybernetics,movingfrom
questionsofself‐organisationtoevolutionandchange(Hayles,1999:222).A
centralconceptofartificiallifediscourseisemergence,andthegoalofits
accompanyingtechnoscientificpracticeisthe"creationofcomputerprograms
instantiatingemergentorevolutionaryprocesses"(Hayles,1999:225).Asystem
showingemergentbehaviourevolvescomplexordersfromsimplerules
governingtheinteractionsbetweenitscomponents,andthesimulationofthis
processincomputercode,forinstancewithcellularautomataasaprecursorof
agent‐basedmodelling,constitutesanattemptat"buildinglifefromthe'bottom‐
up'"(Hayles,1999:225).Artificiallifesecurestheidentificationofprocessesrun
incomputerswithlivingprocessesthrough
narrativesthatmaptheprogramsintoevolutionaryscenariostraditionally
associatedwiththebehaviouroflivingcreatures[and]translatetheoperations
ofcomputercodesintobiologicalanaloguesthatmakesenseoftheprogram
logic(Hayles,1999:225)
Havingatitsroottheinformationalisationoflifeenactedwithinmolecular
biology,artificiallifeabstractslifefromitsmaterialinstantiationandprivileges
theformofemergenceovermatter,hence“computercodes...becomenatural
formsoflife;onlythemediumisartificial“(Hayles,1999:224).Inthissense,a
42
systemcanbesaidtobealiveregardlessofwhetheritsmaterialbaseis
informationprocessinginsiliconorbiochemicalmetabolism,ifonlyitdisplays
self‐organising,emergent,andevolvingbehaviour(Kember,2003:3).
Inthecontextofsimulatingemergence,cultureandsocietyaredescribedas
emergentstructures.Whiletheaimofthesesimulationsisnottosynthesise
silicon‐basedlife,butratherstudy“life‐as‐we‐know‐it“(Kember,2003:133),
theyareneverthelessembeddedinanartificiallifediscoursewhichdeploys
narrativesofemergenceandevolutiontonaturaliseitsobjectofknowledge.In
theattempttosimulateartificialsocieties,socialstructureemergesfromthe
interactionsofartificialagents(Kember,2003:139).Kemberpointstothe
problematicnaturalisationofthesocialwithinthis
computationalapproachtothesocialsciences,employinganagent‐based
evolutionaryperspectiveinfluencedbyworkoncellularautomata,genetic
algorithms,cybernetics,connectionism,AIandALife(Kember,2003:138‐139)
IntheseminalworkonsimulatingartificialsocietiesbyEpsteinandAxtell
(1996),thesocialsimulationconstructsa"neo‐Darwinistscenarioinvolving
geneticreplication,diversityandselectioninacompetitiveenvironmentof
scarceresources"(Kember,2003:139).Kemberarguesthatthisprojectamounts
toanaturalisationofsocialrelationsnotunlikesociobiology'sratificationof
presentsocialphenomenathroughtheassumptionofevolutionarynecessity
(Kember,2003:139).However,EpsteinandAxtell’sworkisexplicitlyreferenced
inthewhitepaperlayingdownthevisionfortheLivingEarthSimulator,and
presentedasanexampleforsuccessfulapplicationsofagent‐basedmodellingin
thesocialsciences(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:75).Hence,althoughFuturICTdoes
43
notaimtocreatesilicon‐basedlife,theprojectneverthelesspartakesina
discoursewhichdesignatesemergentorganisationasthekeycharacteristicof
life,regardlessofitsspecificmateriality.Iflifeisabstractedfromitsmaterialand
embodiedspecificityandredefinedasemergentorganisationofcomplex
systems,itbecomespossibletoclaimthattheobjectofknowledgetobe
simulatedislifeonEarth,ifnotlifeitself.
Emergence,SarahKemberargues,isthekeyconceptwithwhichartificiallife
discourseconstructsthenaturalnessofitsobjectofknowledgebecauseit
“confersoncomputers...thepowerofevolution–thepowertoevolvelife“
(Kember,2003:56).Theunpredictabilityofemergentbehaviourtransforms
computersimulationsintoalegitimatenature‐likeobjecttobestudiedinthe
senseofthenaturalsciencessinceitevokesascientist‐subjectasawitnessof
natureseparatedfromhisorherobjectofknowledge.Whilethe“constructivist
premiseoftheproject“(Kember,2003:58)remainsevident,thesimulationof
emergenceneverthelessallowsforclaimingascientificsubjectivitywhich
witnessestheevolutionofanaturalprocessratherthaninsinuatinganengineer
constructingatechnicalobject.Hence,thenaturalisationoftheobjectofstudyin
thediscourseandpracticesofartificiallifedependsonconstructingthesubject
positionofthewitnessingscientist,restingonthe“generativeabilityof
simulation,syntheticandvisualisationmachinesand...themultiplicityof
potentialwitnesses“(Kember,2003:58).
IntheFuturICTproposalthenaturalnessoftheobjectunderstudyissecuredby
themetaphorofthe“socioscope“whichallowstheobservertowitnessthe
44
emergenceofsocialphenomenainanexperimentalistconfigurationsimilarto
thenaturalsciences:
Asagent‐basedsimulationsaresuitedfordetailedhypothesis‐testing,onecould
saythattheycanserveasasortofmagnifyingglassortelescope(“socioscope“),
whichmaybeusedtounderstandrealitybetter(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:73)
Themetaphorofthesocioscope,imaginedasascientificinstrumentallowingfor
observationandexperimentationwithsocialprocesses,iscrucialfor
naturalisingtheobjectunderstudyandthusauthorisingtheclaimtoproduce
mattersoffact,thatis,objectiveknowledge.Intheirstudyontheoriginsofthe
experimentalmethod,ShapinandSchaffer(1985)arguethattheestablishment
ofnaturalmattersoffact‐thatis,ofderivingknowledgedirectlyfromnature,
whichauthorisesthisknowledgeasobjective‐restsupontheelaborate
deploymentofmaterial,discursive,andsocialtechnologiesinordertoerase
humanagencyfromtheprocessofknowledgeproduction:
Toidentifytheroleofhumanagencyinthemakingofanitemofknowledgeisto
identifythepossibilityofitsbeingotherwise.Toshifttheagencyontonatural
realityistostipulatethegroundsforuniversalandirrevocableassent
(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:23)
Hence,mattersoffactcometobeacceptedassuchiftheycanbepresentedas
comingintobeingwithoutinvolvinghumanagency.Thescientificinstrumentas
a“meansofintellectualproduction“(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:26),then,playsa
crucialroleinthediscursiveerasureofhumanagencyfromtheconstructionof
mattersoffact.Theinstrumentactsasan“objectifyingresource“whichnotonly
producesnewobjectstobeperceived,butalso"standsbetweentheperceptual
competencesofahumanbeingandnaturalrealityitself...themachine
45
constitutesaresourcethatmaybeusedtofactorouthumanagencyinthe
product"(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:77).However,inordertocompletethe
productionofmattersoffactitisnecessarytomaketheexperimentpublicand
organiseacommunityofwitnesseswhocangiveassenttothepropercoming
intobeingofsaidfacts.Thewitnessingoftheexperiment"wastobeacollective
act...thereliabilityoftestimonydependeduponitsmultiplicity"
(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:56).Thismultiplicationofwitnessesisachievedthrough
publicdemonstrationsbeforeacommunityofscholarsontheonehand,and
throughnarrativeconventionsofscientificwritingwhichconstructanauthor‐
subjectasa“disinterestedobserver“(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:69)ontheother,
whichinvolvesevokingagestureofmodesty:
Amanwhosenarrativescouldbecreditedasmirrorsofrealitywasamodest
man(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:65)
Thefigureofthescientistasamodestwitnesswho,presumablyremovedfrom
hisembodiedbeingintheworld,narratesmattersoffactderiveddirectlyfroma
natureseparatefromtheknowingsubject,servesDonnaHaraway(1997)asone
focalpointtoexaminethepoliticalimplicationsoftechnoscience.ToHaraway,
thisconstitutionoftheboundarybetweenwhatcountsasnaturalmattersoffact
andwhat,asculturalorsocialenactedthroughthefigureofthemodestwitness,
isaprofoundlypoliticalact,sinceitseparatesthedistinctdomainsofobjective
46
knowledgeandrational,technicalsolutionsontheonehand,andthefieldof
politicalcontestationontheother(Haraway,1997:24).11
PresentingtheLivingEarthSimulatorasasocioscope,then,redrawsthe
boundarybetweenthesocialandthenatural.Simulatedsocialprocessescan
henceforthbestudiedasiftheywerenatural:unfoldingasemergent
phenomena,theyareobservedasprocessesseeminglyseparatefromthe
observer.Moreover,thethemeofemergenceallowstheauthorsoftheproject
proposaltoletareferencetopreviousworkoncellularautomatatestifytotheir
claimthatagent‐basedmodellingreflectsreality“inanaturalway“
(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:72).
Furthermore,themetaphorofthesocioscopeunderlinesthenaturalnessofthe
objectunderstudysinceitevokesanexperimentalistpositioningofthescientist
towardhisorherinstrumentandtheobjectthusstudied,constitutingemergent
lifeonEarthasanewperceptualobjectthatbelongstothenaturaldomain.
However,themultiplicationofwitnessesinFuturICTextendsbeyondascholarly
community,andisenvisagedaspotentiallyencompassingawiderpublic.The
authorsproposetocreate“newvisualisationcentersforsophisticatedthree‐
11Harawayarguesthatgenderplayedadecisiveroleintheconstitutionofthemodernscientificmethod.ContrarytoShapinandSchaffer,shesuggeststhatthepeculiar
absenceofwomeninearlyexperimentalistconfigurationsneedstobeunderstoodnot
asaneffectofpreformedgenderidentities,butratherasconstitutiveforaspecific
genderrelationwhichauthorisescertainknowledgesasobjective.Modesty,sheargues,
cameintobeingasagenderrelationwherein"femalemodestywasofthebody;thenew
masculinevirtuehadtobeofthemind"(Haraway,1997:30).Objectivity,then,wasfrom
thebeginningaprerogativeofmenwho"weretobeself‐invisible,transparent,sothat
theirreportswouldnotbepollutedbythebody"(Haraway,1997:32).
47
dimensionalanimationsandthedemonstrationtoalargernumberofdecision‐
makers,fromexpertpanels,overmanagersandpoliticianstotheinterested
public“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86).InFuturICT,the“mimeticdevice“
(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:62)ofrealisticvisualrepresentation,whichusedto
accompanythemodestwitness’descriptionoftheexperiment,istransposedinto
thepostmodernkeyofimmersive“virtualreality“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:90).
Hence,FuturICTinvitesamultiplicityofwitnessestoimmersethemselvesintoa
simulationofthesocialrelationsinwhichtheyareheterogeneouslysituated–
yetwhichtheyencounterasanatureseparatefromthemselves,asemergentlife
itself.
4.3 Simulation, situatedness, transformation
TheLivingEarthSimulatorwillbecalibratedbyreal‐worlddata,12andmining
theabundanceofbehaviouraldataundertherubricofbigdatafiguresasan
opportunityto“quicklyincreasetheobjectiveknowledgeaboutsocialand
economicsystems“(Helbing/Balietti,2011:4).Speakinginaninterviewwith
Edgemagazineabouttheincreasingavailabilityofbehaviouraldataandtheiruse
inpredictiveanalytics,projectheadDirkHelbingnotesthepossibilitythat
informationcommunicationtechnologieseventuallywillcreateaGod's‐eye
view:systemsthatmakesenseofallhumanactivities,andtheinteractionsof
people(Helbing,2012)
12FeedingthisdataintotheLivingEarthSimulatoristhefunctionoftheenvisioneddatamininginfrastructurePlanetaryNervousSystem,whichisitselfabiologicalmetaphor
resonatingwiththeinformationalisationoflife.
48
Thisfantasyofgod‐likeomniscience,whichHelbingisclearlyawareof,and
whichisembodiedinthemetaphorofthesocioscopeasascientificinstrument
thatyieldsanobjectiveviewonsocietyasawhole,iscriticisedbyDonna
Harawayasafundamentalgestureunderlyingtheassertionofobjectivityinthe
technosciences.Against“dreamsoftheperfectlyknowninhigh‐technology“
(Haraway,1988:589),Harawaycallsforsituatedpracticesofknowledge‐making
thatavoidthedichotomyofobjectivityandrelativism,i.e.practicesthat,while
beingabletogiveaccountsoftheworldthatarenotreducibletorhetoricsand
languageplay,stillbearinmindthe(historical)contingenciesaffectingand
limitingspecificwaysofknowingtheworld,andarethereforeabletopavethe
wayforethicopoliticalprojectsoftransformation(Haraway,1988:579).Haraway
approachesthepossibilityofsuchanaccountthroughreclaimingthefigureof
themodestwitness,andtheactofwitnessingasanactofseeing:“Themodest
witnessIamcallingforisonethatinsistsonsituatedness“(Haraway,2000:
160).Identifyingtheproliferationoftechnologicalandscientifictechniquesof
visualisationwithan“ideologyofdirect,devouring,generative,andunrestricted
vision,whosetechnologicalmediationsaresimultaneouslycelebratedand
presentedasutterlytransparent“(Haraway,1988:582),Harawayseeksto
reconstructvisionasembodiedandpartialperspectivethroughherinsistence
onsituatedness.Theerasureofthesubjectenactedinscientificpracticesof
witnessing,supportedbyinstrumentsofvisualisationasresourcesfor
objectification,amountstoa“godtrickofseeingfromnowhere“(Haraway,1988:
581)whereasHarawayproposes“viewsfromsomewhere“(Haraway,1988:
590)byreintroducingthespecificsubjectpositionofthewitnessintotheactof
witnessing.Takingintoaccountapoststructuralistunderstandingofthesubject
49
asonethatis(re‐)producedthroughandlocatedindiscourseandpractices,and
thereforealwayspartial,unfinishedandrelational,Harawayproposesthe
modestwitnessasaknowingsubjectthatenablesencounterandshared
practicesofknowledge‐makingpreciselybecausethissubject’sperspectiveis
necessarilypartial:
Subjectivityismultidimensional;so,therefore,isvision.Theknowingselfis
partialinallitsguises,neverfinished,whole,simplythereandoriginal;itis
alwaysconstructedandstitchedtogetherimperfectly,andthereforeabletojoin
withanother,toseetogetherwithoutclaimingtobeanother.Hereisthe
promiseofobjectivity,thatis,partialconnection(Haraway,1988:586)
FuturICT’sclaimtoproduceobjectiveknowledgethroughomniscientvisiondoes
notgoentirelyuncontestedinthecomplexitysciencecommunity.P.M.Allen
(2011),acomplexityscientistinvitedtocommentontheFuturICTproposalina
specialissueoftheEuropeanPhysicalJournal,doubtsthepromisethat
simulationcanproduceobjectiveknowledgeleadingtosolutionsforpolitical
problems:
whatevermodelonecreateswillbeseenbythedifferentagentsandactorsas
beingwithintheirownethicalframeworkandsowhatmayseemperfectlyfair
toone,maywellbeseenastotallyunjustbyothers(Allen,2011:137).
Hence,inhiscommentsonthepoliticalpromisesoftheFuturICTprojectAllen
problematisesarelationbetweentruthclaims,power,andperspectivesimilarto
thataddressedinHaraway’scallforsituatedknowledges.Assentcannotbean
effectofthemodelitself,butmustrestonnegotiatingthedifferentperceptions
ofwhatthemodelrepresents,whichentailsengaginginanencounterbetween
differentlypositionedsubjects.FirmlyobjectingtoFuturICT'spropositionthat
50
contemporaryglobalproblemscanbesolvedgivenapresumablyobjective
understandingofthe"fundamentallawsandprocessesunderlyingsocieties"
(Bishopetal.,2011:34),Allenprovidesatakeontheeffectivenessof
modelisationthatknowsofitslimitationsasaknowledge‐makingpractice:
fundamentallythedifficultiesandgrandchallengeswefaceareareflectionof
thehumanconditioninwhichconflictsofinterestreallyexistandpower
structuresoperateatalllevelswithintheglobalsystem...thisdoesnotmean
thatweshouldnotmakemodelssincethatistheonlythingwecando...butitis
simplistictosupposethattherecanbeobjectiveknowledgeofoutcomesand
thatthesecansolvetheproblemsandchallengesweface(Allen,2011:138)
However,ifunderstoodinanon‐essentialistway,thehumanconditionofwhich
Allenspeaksamountstoasedimentedhistory.Thishistoryispreciselywhat
marksthedifferencebetweenphysical,living,andsocialsystems,asIsabelle
Stengersremarksinlightofearlierattemptstotransfercomplexitymodels
acrossdisciplinaryboundaries:
Contrarytochemicalsystemsforwhichwearesupposedtotakeintoaccountall
thepossibilitiesofreaction,livingandhistoricalindividuals,cells,termites,or
humankindwhosecollectivebehaviourwecanenvisagestudyingare
characterisedbyanindefinitemultiplicationofinteractions.Thus,achoiceis
imposedandthemodelcanhavenoothervalueorvaliditythanthatofthis
choice(Stengers,1997:74)
Thischoice,then,impliesastrongresponsibility,asthosewhochoosehowto
constructthemodel"arealwaysindangerofratifyingthedefinitionofasystem
asitisgiveninthecircumstanceswheretheyfindit"(Stengers,1997:74).
Hence,howtodesignartificialagentsandtheirinteractionsfromwhichsocial
51
structuresemergeisaprofoundlypoliticalchoicethatprivilegesthestatusquo
preciselyiftheexactitudeandobjectivityofthesimulation,andofthefutures
extrapolatedfromit,aremeanttostemfromtheintegrationofbehaviouraldata
fromtheInternet,asisthecaseinFuturICT:
Byselecting,intheirdescriptionofasystem,theinteractionsthathavebeen
stabilisedandprivilegedbythehistorical,social,andpoliticalcontext,theynot
onlytakenoteofthiscontextbutalsojustifyit,becausetheirmodelscanonly
negateorovershadowthepossibilityofotherbehavioursthatdonotrespondto
thedominantlogic(Stengers,1997:75)
FuturICT’sprojectofsimulatingsocietyasalivingsystem,then,runsriskof
stabilisingagivennormativerealitythroughitsinsistenceonanobjectivity
derivedfromtheintegrationofreal‐worlddatawhichcalibrateasimulationthat
ismeanttoemergesocialstructuresinanaturalway.Promisinganomniscient
God’s‐eyeviewpresumablydevoidofpositionedsubjectivitythroughitsreliance
ontechnology,thisactofprivilegingthegivenorderoverthepossibleseems
fraughtwithaninherentriskofconservativebias.Contrarytotherhetoricof
emergence,evolution,andchange,avenuesfortransformationcanbeclosedoff
bydisregardingembodiedsubjectivity,historicalcontingency,andthus
opennesstodifferenceandtransformation.
52
4.4 Imag(in)ing global life
InFuturICT,thelifetobesimulatedisimaginedasharbouringpotentialthreats,
thusunderscoringaprogressnarrativethatpromisestechnoscientificsalvation
fromimpendingcrisesinherentinthecomplexityofsystems.
IntheanimatedintroductiontothepromotionalvideoontheFuturICTwebsite
(Fig.1),agloberevolvesfromwhichstringsofbinarydataemergeandreachout
intotheorbit,eventuallyencirclingtheglobeandweavingitintoasphereof
interconnecteddatastreamsinwhichwordslike‘famine’,‘drought’and
‘migration’popup(FuturICT,2012b).Theaccompanyingmusicevokesasense
ofurgencyreminiscentofanewsbroadcast.
Fig.1 Video still of revolving globe enveloped by data (FuturICT, 2012b)
53
Fig.2 The whole earth as interface (European Commission, 2011: 10)
InthepublicationoftheEuropeanCommissionannouncingFuturICTasanFET
flagshipcandidate(Fig.2),anillustrationshowstwowhitepeople,amananda
woman,visiblethroughatranslucentinterfaceshowingaphotorealisticthree‐
dimensionalglobeframedbyanumberofgraphs,chartsanddiagramsaswellas
picturesoftrees,bark,surfandcloudysky.Visiblyfascinatedbytheanimation,
themanpointsattheglobewhilethewomanstandsbywatchingdocilely
(EuropeanCommission,2011).
Whilethelatterillustrationinvitesawestern‐centricandgenderedreading
wherewhitemanfiguresasmasterofatechnologicallyrenderedworld,there
appearstobeasemanticconnotationsharedbetweenbothillustrations,evoking
anotionofvulnerablenatureremadethroughtechnologyandunderscoringa
progressnarrativereinvigoratedbythenotionofcomplexity.Franklinetal.
(2000)analysetheglobeasaniconthat"encapsulatescontemporary
understandingsoflifeonearth",conveyingasenseof"bothendangeredfragility
54
andthevitalityofaluminescentlifeforce"(Franklinetal.,2000:27).
Photographedfromspace,thepictureofthewholeearthisaproductof
technologicalprowess,yetitalsocarriesdeepambiguities.Thenarrativeof
technologicalmasteryandprogressitplaysinto,elevatingtheviewerintoa
"God's‐eye"(Franklinetal.,2000:27)position,iscounteractedby“fears
concerningfuturehumansurvival,andthetechnologicalrisksnecessaryto
producesuchimagesinthefirstplace“(Franklinetal.,2000:31).Thelossofa
horizon,thatis,seeingtheearthasa“whole,discreteentity“lendsthepictureto
notionsof“sharedplanetaryinterdependence“insinuatinga“newlyimagedand
imaginedformofglobalunity“(Franklinetal.,2000:28).Thenaturethus
imaginedthroughtheimageofthewholeearthiswhollyremadebytechnology
andvulnerable,butnonethelessnatural:itserves,asFranklinetal.argue,asa
transformedcontexttogroundtheinterpellationofasubjectthatunderstands
itselfaspartofaglobalpopulationatsharedrisk(Franklinetal.,2000:26).
Juxtaposingpatternsofnaturewithgraphsanddiagrams,andrepresentinglife
onEarthasemerginginformationalpatternsbearingpotentialrisks,thevisual
narrativesurroundingFuturICTevokesasenseofatechnologicallypermeated
andinterconnectedworldunderthreatwhichnecessitatesaGod’s‐eyeviewin
ordertounderstandandmasterit.Thethreatinherentinlifeislinkedwithits
understandingasacomplexsystem.Inawhitepaperpositingtheneedfor
FuturICT,HelbingandBaliettistatethatthe“grandchallengesfacingmankindin
the21stcentury”arepotentiallycatastrophiccrisesconceivedas“systemic
instabilities,andothercontagiouscascade‐spreadingprocesses”
(Helbing/Balietti,2011:3).HelbingandBaliettisituatetherootcausesof
contemporarycrisesandconflictssuchastheglobalfinancialcrashandthe
55
Greekuprisingagainstausterityinthenonlinearbehaviourofcomplexsystems
wherethe“impactofrandomlocaleventsofperturbationsbecomessystemicin
size”(Helbing/Balietti,2011:19).
Thissenseofcomplexsystemspotentiallyrunningoutofcontrolandthreatening
mankind,whichhencemustbemasteredbyscientificrationality,resonateswith
agenderedimaginarythattraditionallyinformswesternnotionsoftherelation
betweenscienceandnature.SandraHarding(1986)arguesthatagendered
imaginaryofadistinctlyfemalenatureliesattherootofthemodernscientific
worldview.Naturewasimaginedasexistinginatensionbetweentheimagesof
thepassivewoman,indifferenttotheactivemale'sexperimentalworkonher
body‐frequentlyimaginedasaformofviolation‐andan“unruly,wildnature”
(Harding,1986:115)figuringasathreateningandunstablewomanassociated
withthebreakdownoforder.Whatismore,BarbaraCreed(1993:1‐2)argues
thatinWesternculturethegenderedimaginaryofthe“monstrous‐feminine”was
frequentlyassociatedwiththe“adventofnaturaldisasters”.Thisfeminine
nature‐out‐of‐control,then,wastobetamedandmasteredbyscientific
knowledge‐makingifmanwasto“controlhisfate”(Harding,1986:115).
Moreover,DonnaHaraway(1997:8)maintainsthatnarrativesofimpending
apocalypsefromwhichthetechnosciencespromisesalvationlieattherootof
modernnotionsofprogress.ThenarrativeofFuturICTisnoexceptiontothat.
Giventhethreatemanatingfrom“hopelesslycomplex”(Bishopetal.,2011:34)
systems,andinvokingtheexperienceofcontemporarycrisessuchasthe
financialcrashandrecurrentpoliticalinstabilities,theinitiatorsofFuturICT
56
assumea“moralobligation”(FuturICT,2012:3)tounderstandandmanage
complexity:
Quickscientificprogressisneededinordertolearnhowtoefficientlystopthe
on‐goingcascadingeffectsanddownwardtrends(FuturICT,2012:3)
Understandingcomplexity,then,isinfusedwithamoraldiscoursewherealack
ofawarenessofcomplexityleadstocatastrophe.Hence,althoughinFuturICTthe
modernmetanarrativeofscientificprogress(Lyotard,1984)appearstobe
tainted,ifnotbroken,byanacknowledgmentoftheprofusionofrisks
accompanyingthedevelopmentoftechnologicalsystems,thenarrativeis
eventuallyresurrectedandstabilisedwiththepromiseofanewscientific
perspectiveandtechnologiesforunderstandingandmanagingcomplexity.In
fact,asIsabelleStengers(1997)notes,thediscourseoncomplexitytendsto
stressthemesofcrisistoestablishcomplexityasanewparadigm:
Whatseemstohappenisthatthemesofworldcrisis,andaquestioningofthe
presuppositionsthatallowedustounderestimatethecrisisortothinkofitas
epiphenomenal,areinterwovenwiththethemesofa‘newrationality’(Stengers,
1997:4)
Thus,theaboundingthemesof“instability,crisis,differentiation,catastrophes,
andimpasses”(Stengers,1997:4)incomplexitydiscoursecometounderscorea
strategicinterventiontoreplaceanoldparadigmwithanewone,andthereby
postulatetheprospectofsolvingimpendingproblemsthathithertocouldnotbe
solved.Repeatingthegestureofscientism,then,thescienceofcomplexity“is
heraldedassolutiontoethicopoliticalproblems”(Stengers,1994:4).
57
4.5 Biomimetic government
InaworkingpaperonsystemicrisksfortheSantaFeInstitute,projectheadDirk
Helbing(2009)outlinestheproblemsofcontrolincomplexsystems,mainly
amongthemthoseissuesstemmingfromtheirnonlinearity,thatis,
unpredictabilityinthelongrun,andthedisproportionalityofcauseandeffect
wherein“bigchangesmayhavesmallornoeffects”but“smallchangesmay
causeasuddenregimeshift”ifthesystemisnearacriticalpoint(Helbing,2009:
5).TheworldHelbingenvisionsisfarfromequilibriumandmightbestbe
characterisedas“alwaysalreadyoutofcontrol”(Kember,2003:117),thus
demandingnovelstrategiesofgoverning:
inastronglyvaryingworld,strictstabilityisnotpossibleanymore...aparadigm
shifttowardsmoreflexible,agile,adaptivesystemsisneeded,possible,and
overdue(Helbing,2009:8)
Consideringthisunstableworld,Helbingmaintainsthat“complexsystems
cannotbecontrolledintheconventionalway”butshouldratherbemanagedby
“strengthen[ing]theself‐organisationandself‐controlofthesystem”(Helbing,
2009:6).Managingcomplexity,then,impliestakingintoaccountacertain
knowledgeofthemomentumandintrinsicdynamicsofcomplexsystemsin
ordertostimulatetheemergenceoffavourablesystembehaviour,thatis,to
“workwiththesystemratherthanagainstit”(Helbing,2009:8).
Ofcourse,thisemphasisonorderemergingfromtheinteractionsofindividuals
inaself‐organisedwayisreminiscentoftheinvisiblehandofliberalism.
However,whileHelbingacknowledgesthemetaphoroftheinvisiblehandas
prefiguringthenotionofself‐organisation,heemphasisesthatself‐organisation
58
neednotnecessarilyleadtooptimalequilibrium,ratherequilibriumneeds
“properlychosen[interaction]rules”(Helbing,2009:9).Oneofthetechniques
Helbingproposestoachievethisismechanismdesignwhichattemptsto
influencetheinteractionsbetweensystemelementsinorderforfavourable
behaviourtoemergefromthebottomup:
regulationsshouldnotspecifywhatexactlythesystemelementsshoulddo,but
setboundstoactions(define'rulesofthegame'),whichgivethesystem
elementsenoughdegreesoffreedomtoself‐organizegoodsolutions(Helbing,
2009:6)
Helbingetal.(2009)provideanexampleforsuchamechanisminapaperona
biomimeticlogisticssystemtakingitscuesfrombiologicaltransportsystemson
themolecularlevel.Drawingananalogybetweenhuman‐madetrafficsystems
andcellularmetabolismasbothcomplexsystems,theyidentifynaturalsuccess
strategiestobeappliedtologisticsingeneral:
Theunderlyingsuccessstrategiesincludeextensiverecycling,self‐organization,
self‐assembly,andself‐repair.Thesepropertiesarelargelybasedonlocal
interactions,i.e.ondecentralisedcontrolapproaches.(Helbingetal.,2009:538)
Thecontrolstrategythusderivedfrombiologicalknowledgeandputinpractice
intrafficcontrolresultsinbottom‐upself‐organisationwhichisconceivedas
markedlydifferentfromtop‐downfeedbackcontrol,andisheldtoproducea
muchmoreefficientandrobustsystemperformancethatisabletotolerate
fluctuations.Inessence,themechanismconsistsofacontinuouslymeasuring
predictionsystemoftrafficflow,whichregulatesthetrafficlightsystemsothat
“trafficstreamscontrolthetrafficlightsratherthantheotherwayaround”
(Helbingetal.,2009:543).Theproposedmechanismseemstosharesomeofits
59
functionallogicwiththeprocessofmodulationwhichGillesDeleuze(1992)
describesinhisessayonthesocietiesofcontrol.Modulationgovernsflexibly
“likeasievewhosemeshwilltransmutefrompointtopoint”(Deleuze,1992:4).
Analysingtheinterplaybetweendatacollectionandpredictiveanalyticsin
digitalenvironmentsasaformofmodulation,DavidSavatstatesthat“itisnow
theenvironmentthatadjuststoyou,anddoessoinadvance”(Savat,2009:57).
Crucially,thebottom‐upapproachtoself‐organisationinthiscasedoesnot
simplymeanlaissezfaire,butratheraimstoshapetheconditionsunderwhich
favourableprocessesofself‐organisationcanoccur.Theauthorsderivefromthe
functionalprinciplesofbiological“autocatalyticandinhibitoryprocesses”a
regulatorytechniqueof“gentleinterference”(Helbingetal.,2009:544)which
meansthat
iftheinteractionsbetweenthesystemelementsaresuitable,onlysmall
feedbacksignalsarenecessarytoreachthedesiredbehaviour(Helbingetal.,
2009:544)
IntheirwhitepaperonFuturICT,HelbingandBalietti(2011a:82)expressthe
convictionthatsimilarbiomimetictechnologiesmightbeappliedtothe
governanceofcomplexsocialandeconomicsystemsaswell,andenvision
FuturICTasresearchinganddevelopingsuchtechniques.
Thisattemptatincreasingrobustnessthroughstimulatingself‐organisationis
furtheremphasisedinFuturICT’sstatedgoalofincreasing‘systemicresilienceof
thesociety’(Bishopetal.,2011:36).Resilienceisthecapacityofanetworked
systemtowithstandexternalorinternalperturbations,andcloselyrelatedtothe
differentnetworktopologiesdescribedingraphtheorywherein
60
scale‐freenetworksarenotresilienttofailuresoftheirhubs,andarethusquite
vulnerabletoaccidentalfailuresortargetedattacks(Mitchell,2006:1200)
Increasingtheresilienceofanetworkmeansreducingitssusceptibilityto
cascadingfailure(Helbing,2009:9).Cascadingfailuredenotesthatfaultsof
singlecriticalnodescanhavenonlinearsystem‐wideeffects,threateningthe
networkasawholeifacertainthresholdisreached(Helbing,2009:3).Ina
certainsense,thethreattothesystemisinherentinitscomplexity:asidefrom
externalshockswhichmightputthenetworkunderstress,thenonlinear
amplificationofinternalfluctuationsentailsthat“someendogeneousprocesses
canautomaticallydrivethesystemtowardsacriticalstate”(Helbing,2009:4).
Understoodasco‐evolvingwithitsenvironment,thesystem’scapacityto
maintainorganisationalcomplexitydespiteperturbationsaddsthedimensionof
evolutionaryadaptabilitytothenotionofresilience.ForHelbingandBalietti,
resilienceandevolutionaryadaptationrepresentanargumentforthe
maintenanceofsocialdiversity,protectionofminorities,andstrongprivacy
controlsasapreconditionforsocialsystemstoadapttoanunstable
environment:
Asisknownfromevolutionarytheory,innovationthrivesbestwhenthereisa
largediversityofvariants.Inotherwords,diversityor‘pluralism’isthemotor
drivinginnovation.Wouldwejustorientourselvesatthemajorityorwhatis
‘normal’(theaverage),theinnovationrateand,withthis,adaptabilityto
changing(environmental)conditionswouldbepoor(Helbing/Balietti,2011:27)
Groundingthisanalogybetweensocialchangeandbiologicalevolutionfirmlyin
aliberaldemocraticteleology,theauthorsproceedtoarguethatalackofsocial
61
diversity,andthusadaptability,is“actuallythereasonwhytotalitarianregimes
aresoonerorlaterdestinedtofail”(Helbing/Balietti,2011:27).
Yetdiversityperseisnotheldtobesufficient.Ratherthanlettingevolutionrun
itsway,HelbingandBaliettienvisiona“paradigmshiftindecision‐making”
whichinvolvesusingtheLivingEarthSimulatortoexperimentallytestthe
probableoutcomesofasetofpolicyoptionsbeforeimplementingthem
(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86).Here,simulationprecedesimplementation,and
geneticalgorithmsareenvisagedtocreateandtestdifferentpolicyoptions
beforetheyareimplementedinreality.Geneticalgorithmsarecomputer
programmesthat
employDarwinianprinciplesofevolutioninordertoincreasethefitnessof
successivegenerationsofalgorithms,wherefitnessisameasureofsuccessin
solvingspecificcomputationalproblems(Kember,2003:123)
However,whichofthenewpoliciesgeneratedbygeneticalgorithmswillenjoy
system‐wideimplementationisagaindeterminedbytheirevolutionarysuccess,
whichisderivedfrommeasuringthepolicy’sperformanceinaninitiallylimited
real‐worlddomain(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86).Thus,theauthorsimaginethe
governmentalprocessasaguidedevolutionovermultiplesteps.Variationsare
designedwiththeaidofgeneticalgorithms,thentestedlocallyastotheirfitness
and,ifprovensuccessful,appliedtothewholepopulation.HelbingandBalietti
frametheirreimaginedgovernmentalprocessinevolutionaryterms,promisinga
methodofsecuringpoliticalsuccessauthorisedbynatureitself:
Insomesense,thisapproachtoimplementinginnovationsismorealongthe
linesofhownatureseemstowork.Infact,thedescribedapproachbasically
62
followstheprinciplesofevolution,withthemaindifferencethatsomeofthe
testingofnewsolutionshappensinthevirtualratherthantherealworld,and
onlythebestvariantsaredeployedinreality(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86)
Hence,asaconsequenceofthenaturalisationofthesocialasacomplexliving
systemembodiedintheLivingEarthSimulator,asetofregulatorytechniques
areproposedthatestablishaspecificgovernmentalarchitecturewhich
incorporatesthedynamicsoflife.Regulatingthesocialaccordingtotheintrinsic
characteristicsoflivingsystemswhicharenolongersecurelyhomeostatic,but
ratherpronetosuddenchange,thesetechnologiesseektostimulateself‐
organisationthroughthedesignofmechanismsthatgovernsocialinteractionsin
ordertoproducetheemergenceoffavourableorganisation,increasesystemic
resiliencebyrenderingdiversityaresourcenecessaryforadaptation,andapply
evolutionaryprinciplesinordertogovernsocialchange.
63
5. Conclusion: biopolitical simulations
Writingontheculturalsignificanceofnonlineardynamics,KatherineHayles
arguesthatthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcenturywitnessedawidespreadshift
towards“exploringthepossibilitiesofdisorder”(Hayles,1990:xi).Whereasthe
scientificstudyofnonlinearsystemscouldonlytakeoffaftermorecomputers
becameavailableasscientificinstrumentsinthe1960sand1970s,through
environmentalandeconomiccrisesthisperiodalreadyproducedthe“growing
realisationthattheworlditselfhasbecome(oralreadywas)acomplexsystem
economically,technologically,environmentally”(Hayles,1990:5).Considering
the“rapiddevelopmentofinformationtechnologies”inthesubsequentdecades,
an“increasingawarenessofglobalcomplexities,andconsequentattentionto
smallfluctuations”(Hayles,1990:9)providestheculturalframeforthequestion
ofhowordermightbeachievedinaworldrenderedfundamentallyunstable.
Complexity,then,posesaquestiontowhichlifeistheanswer:howtogovern
livingbeingsinan“unstableworldwheresmallcausescanhavelargeeffects”
(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:260).Whereasthespecificknowledgeoflifeinthe
19thcenturyprovidedafunctionalmodelfororganisingcirculationswithina
population,inFuturICTlifefiguresasananswertothequestiondrivingthe
complexitysciences,thatis,“howtocopewithacomplexenvironment...by
achievingakindofpoisedstatebalancedontheedgeofchaos”(Kauffman,1995:
86).WithintheknowledgesoflifewhichCanguilhemdiscussesinthecontextof
19thcenturybiology,thelivingorganismfiguredasahomeostaticapparatus
maintainingitsequilibriuminnegotiationwithitsmilieu(Canguilhem,1994:
85).Moreover,Foucaultshowshowthethemesofhomeostasisandequilibrium
64
playedadecisiveroleintheestablishmentofbiopoliticsatthethresholdof
modernity;abiopoliticswhichaimedtomaintainastableequilibriumwithina
populationbyincorporatingintoitsregulatorytechniquesaspecificknowledge
oflifeasanormativeprocesstendingtowardshomeostasis(Foucault,2007:37;
2004:241).WhileCanguilhem(1994:86‐7)acknowledgesthecontinuity
betweenthe19thcenturyknowledgeofthelivingbeingasahomeostaticentity
and20thcenturycybernetictheoriesofself‐regulation,heformulatesaproblem
thatshouldlaterbeaddressedbytheoriesofcomplexity.Iftheorganismis
conceivedasacyberneticapparatuscontinuallyself‐regulatinginordertoresist
thegeneraltendencytowardsthedisorderofentropy,howtoaccountforthe
existenceoforderedlivingbeingsinthefirstplace?Or,inCanguilhem’sown
words:“Isorganisationorderamidstdisorder?”(Canguilhem,1994:87).Thisis
preciselythequestionwhichtheoriesofemergenceseektoanswerby
investigatingthespontaneousself‐organisationoforderinwhich“entropy‐rich
systemsfacilitateratherthanimpedeself‐organisation”(Hayles,1990:9)and
“nature...canrenewitselfpreciselybecauseitisrichindisorderandsurprise”
(Hayles,1990:11).Disorder,then,becomestheconditionofpossibilityoforder,
andtheself‐organisationoflivingsystemsthekeyformaintainingorderamidst
aturbulentenvironment,thusprovidingafunctionalmodelforgoverning
complexsystems.
Hence,inFuturICTbiopowerpersistsasamodalityofpowerwhichgoverns
livingbeingsaccordingtoaspecificincorporatedknowledgeoflife.Lifebecomes
anobjectofknowledgewithinsimulationswhichemployagent‐basedmodelling
inordertostudytheself‐organisedemergenceofsocialstructures,anda
governabledomainthroughthedevelopmentoftechniqueswhichseekto
65
regulatecomplexsystemsaccordingtotheirfunctionaldynamics.Whereas
FuturICT’sdepoliticisedtechnologicalrationalityisnotanoveltyinthecontext
ofglobalsimulations(Ashley,1983),thespecificityoftheproject,however,lies
intheinstrumentalisationoflifeforauthorisingmechanismsofpower.The
proposedtechnologiesforgoverningcomplexsystemsarenotonlyderivedfrom
theobservationofbiologicalprocesses,butarelegitimisedpreciselybecause,in
thediscourseinformingFuturICT,socialsystemsfigureasaliveinasimilarsense
asbiologicalsystems:sincebothcanbeunderstoodasnonlinearsystemswhich
evolveformsoforganisationthatexistalwaysattheedgeofdisorder,the
governanceoflivingbeingsbecomesamatterofmanagingcomplexityinorder
topreservetheprecariousstabilityofathreatenedsocialorder.Paraphrasing
Foucault's(2007:22)remarksontherelationbetweennatureandartificein
biopolitics,then,onecouldsaythatthebiomimetictechnologiesenvisionedin
FuturICTfunctionasanatureinrelationtoapopulationthat,whilebeingwoven
fromsocialrelations,alsofunctionsasalivingsystem.
However,thespecificbiopoliticalmechanismsinformedbythedynamicsoflife
havechangedfromestablishingself‐regulatingcirculationstostimulatingself‐
organisation,andfromanorientationtowardslife’sproductionofnorms,and
thusnormalisation,toanincreasedattentiontowardsthepossibleimpactof
localeventsunderstoodas“fluctuationsthatthreaten[systemic]stability”
(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:188).Thesemechanismsaretechnicalsolutionsto
ethicopoliticalproblemswhichgainauthoritypreciselybecausetheproblems
theyaredeemedtosolvehavebeennaturalisedbefore.Inthecontextof
sociobiologyanditsrecentiterationssuchasevolutionarypsychology,Kember
arguesthattheactofnaturalisingformerlydenaturalised,contingentsocial
66
relationssuchasgenderisprofoundlypoliticalbecauseitdepoliticisesthrough
itsjustificationofthestatusquo,andthus“absolvesusoftheresponsibilityto
act”(Kember,2003:34).Actualisingasimilarlogic,FuturICTnarrowsthespace
ofpoliticsdowntoamatterofapplyingatechnologicalrationalityprefiguredin
thescientificprojectofattainingmasteryovernature,whichneglectsthe
responsibilityforreflectingonandtransformingthehistoricallystabilisedsocial
relationswhichbringforththeglobalproblemswhichFuturICTseekstoaddress.
Yetthereformulationoflifewithincomplexitytheoriescouldalsoprovidean
avenuefordifferentformsofknowledge‐making.Inherdiscussionofthe
continuingrelevanceofCanguilhem’sengagementwithvitalism,MonicaGreco
suggeststhatthespecificityoflifeasanobjectofknowledgeresiststotalising
epistemologiesbecause“thescienceoflifeis,itself,amanifestationoftheactivity
oftheliving,amanifestationofitsownsubjectmatter”(Greco,2005:18).
FollowingCanguilhem,theindividualcangainknowledgeofitsenvironment–
itsmilieu–onlyinsofarasitisalwaysalreadysituatedwithinthisenvironment
asaspecificlivingbeing,experiencingitasitsconditionsofexistence(Greco,
2005:19).Thesituatednessoftheknowingsubjectintheworldisthus
introducedintotherelationbetweensubjectandobjectofknowledge.Rather
thanassuminganontologicallystable,knowingindividualseparatefromits
objectofknowledge,theinsistenceonthecouplingoforganismandmilieu,and
theunstableboundarybetweenthesetwo,implicatesapartialandrelational
perspectivemoreakintoHaraway’ssituatedknowledges(Greco,2005:20‐1).
Interestingly,GrecodelineatesacertaincontinuityinCanguilhem’sand
Haraway’sepistemologiesandIsabelleStengers’philosophicalinterpretationof
67
thesciencesofcomplexity.Giventhereformulationofthelivingasacomplex
system,Stengers(1997)groundsherpleaforadifferentethosofthoughtinthe
temporalityofnonlinearsystems.Ifnonlinearitysignifiesahighsensitivityto
slightdifferencesininitialconditions,thenthepositionoftheideal,god‐like
observerwhomightundertaketheperfectinitialmeasurementspresupposedby
classicalphysicsinordertopredictthebehaviourofasystemissimplynot
attainablepreciselybecauseofthetemporalandspatialsituatednessofboth
systemandobserver(Stengers,1997:39‐40).Contrarytothetechnoscientific
andbiopoliticalrationalityenactedinFuturICT,then,understandinglifeinterms
ofcomplexitycouldaswellyieldadifferentpracticeofknowledge‐making
whereinlifeisnotinstrumentalisedforstabilisingpowerrelations:apractice
thatassumesapartialperspectivewhereinomniscienceisfutile,asisafantasy
ofpredictionandcontrol,forinthestudyofnonlinearity,andthuslife,therecan
onlybesituatedsubjects.
68
Bibliography
Agamben,G.(1998)Homosacer.Sovereignpowerandbarelife.Stanford:
StanfordCaliforniaPress.
Allen,P.(2011)'CommentsbyP.AllenontheVisioneerwhitepapersbyD.
HelbingandS.Balietti'EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics195,165‐186.
Ashley,R.(1983)'Theeyeofpower:thepoliticsofworldmodeling'International
Organization37(3),495‐535.
Barry,A.(2006)'Technologicalzones'EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory9(2),
239‐253.
Bergson,H.(1998)Creativeevolution.Mineola:Dover.
Bishop,S.etal.(2011)'TheEuropeanFutureTechnologiesConferenceand
Exhibition2011.FuturICT:FETFlagshipPilotProject'ProcediaComputerScience
7,34‐38.
Bollier,D.(2010)Thepromiseandperilofbigdata[Online].Availableat:
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/promise‐peril‐big‐data(Accessed:
27August2012)
Canguilhem,G.(2008)Knowledgeoflife.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.
Canguilhem,G.(1994)Avitalrationalist.NewYork:ZoneBooks.
Creed,B.(1993)TheMonstrousFeminine.Film,feminism,psychoanalysis.London
andNewYork:Routledge.
Deleuze,G.(1992)'Postscriptonthesocietiesofcontrol'October59,3‐7.
Doyle,R.(1997)Onbeyondliving.Rhetoricaltransformationsofthelifesciences.
Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.
Economist(2010)'Thedatadeluge',25February.Economist[Online].Available
at:http://www.economist.com/node/15579717(Accessed:27August2012).
Epstein,J.&Axtell,R.(1996)Growingartificialsocieties.Socialsciencefromthe
bottomup.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.
69
EuropeanCommission(2011)BuildingFETflagships:aworldclassscientific
endeavour.Brussels:DirectorateGeneralInformationSocietyandMedia.
Foucault,M.(2008)ThehistoryofsexualityVol.1:thewilltoknowledge.
Camberwell:Penguin.
Foucault,M.(2008a)Thebirthofbiopolitics:lecturesattheCollègedeFrance,
19781979.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Foucault,M.(2007)Security,territory,population:lecturesattheCollègede
France,197778.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.
Foucault,M.(2007a)'Whatiscritique?',inLotringer,S.(ed.)Thepoliticsoftruth.
LosAngeles:Semiotexte,41‐81.
Foucault,M.(2004)Societymustbedefended:lecturesattheCollègedeFrance,
197576.London:Penguin.
Foucault,M.(2002)Theorderofthings.NewYork:Routledge.
Foucault,M.(1991)Disciplineandpunish:thebirthoftheprison.London:
Penguin.
Franklin,S.etal.(2000)Globalnature,globalculture.London:Sage.
FranklinS.(2000)'Lifeitself',inFranklin,S.etal.(eds.)Globalnature,global
culture.London:Sage,188‐224.
FuturICT(2012)Globalcomputingforourcomplexworld[Online].Availableat:
http://www.futurict.eu/sites/default/files/docs/files/FuturICT_32p_Project%2
0Outline%20WITH%20LHS.pdf(Accessed:27August2012)
FuturICT(2012a)ResponseintheMedia.Availableat:
http://www.futurict.eu/response‐in‐the‐media(Accessed:27August2012)
FuturICT(2012b)FuturICTdocumentary.Availableat:
http://vimeo.com/29480781(Accessed:27August2012).
Greco,M.(2005)'Onthevitalityofvitalism'Theory,Culture&Society22(1),15‐
27.
Hacking,I.(1982)'Biopowerandtheavalancheofprintednumbers'Humanities
inSociety5(3&4),279‐295.
70
Haraway,D.(2004)'Therearealwaysmorethingsgoingonthanyouthought!
Methodologiesasthinkingtechnologies’,Haraway,D.(ed.)TheHarawayReader.
NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,332‐342.
Haraway,D.(2000)Howlikealeaf.AninterviewwithThyrzaNicholsGoodeve.
NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.
Haraway,D.(1997)
Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse.NewYork
andLondon:Routledge.
Haraway,D.(1990)'Amanifestoforcyborgs:science,technology,andsocialist
feminisminthe1980s',inNicholson,L.(ed.)Feminism/Postmodernism.London
andNewYork:Routledge,191‐233.
Haraway,D.(1988)'Situatedknowledges:thesciencequestioninfeminismand
theprivilegeofpartialperspective'FeministStudies14(3),575‐599.
Harding,S.(1986)Thesciencequestioninfeminism.Ithaca:CornellUniversity
Press.
Hayles,K.(1999)Howwebecameposthuman.Virtualbodiesincybernetics,
literature,andinformatics.ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.
Hayles,K.(1990)Chaosbound.Orderlydisorderincontemporaryliteratureand
science.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Helbing,D.(2012)'Anewkindofsocio‐inspiredtechnology'Edge,19June
[Online].Availableat:http://edge.org/conversation/a‐new‐kind‐of‐social‐
inspired‐technology(Accessed:27August2012)
Helbing,D.(2009)'SystemicRisksinSocietyandEconomics'[Online].Available
at:http://www.santafe.edu/research/working‐
papers/abstract/9596e5a57d1f9b7e8fcc289f118555ce/(Accessed:27August
2012).
Helbing,D.&Balietti,S.(2011)'Fromsocialdataminingtoforecastingeconomic
crises'EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics195,3‐68.
Helbing,D.&Balietti,S.(2011a)'Fromsocialsimulationtointegrativesystem
design'EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics195,69‐100.
71
Helbing,D.etal.(2011)'Understanding,creating,andmanagingcomplextechno‐
socio‐economicsystems:challengesandperspectives'EuropeanPhysicalJournal
SpecialTopics195,165‐186.
Helbing,D.etal.(2009)'Biologisticsandthestruggleforefficiency:conceptsand
perspectives'AdvancesinComplexSystems12(6),533‐548.
Humphreys,P.(2002)'Mathematicalmodelinginthesocialsciences',inTurner,
S.&Roth,A.(eds.)TheBlackwellguidetothephilosophyofthesocialsciences.
Malden,OxfordandBerlin:Blackwell,166‐184.
Kauffman,S.(1995)Athomeintheuniverse.Thesearchforthelawsofself
organizationandcomplexity.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kay,L.(2000)Whowrotethebookoflife?Ahistoryofthegeneticcode.Stanford:
StanfordUniversityPress.
Keller,E.(2005)'Revisiting"scale‐free"networks'BioEssays27,1060‐1068.
Kember,S.(2003)Cyberfeminismandartificiallife.LondonandNewYork:
Routledge.
Kember,S.(2006)'Doingtechnoscienceas('new')media',inCurran,J.&Morley,
D.(eds.)Mediaandculturaltheory.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.
Lazer,D.etal.(2009)'Lifeinthenetwork:thecomingageofcomputational
socialscience'TobepublishedinScience.NIHPA[Preprint].Availableat:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745217/(Accessed:27
August2012).
Lemke,T.(2011)Biopolitics.Anadvancedintroduction.NewYorkandLondon:
NewYorkUniversityPress.
Lyotard,J.(1984)Thepostmoderncondition.Areportonknowledge.
Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
Manyika,J.etal.(2011)'Bigdata:Thenextfrontierforinnovation,competition,
andproductivity'[Online].Availableat:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/technology_and_innovation/
big_data_the_next_frontier_for_innovation(Accessed:27August2012).
72
Mayr,O.(1986)Authority,liberty&automaticmachineryinearlymodernEurope.
BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Mislove,A.etal.(2010)'PulseoftheNation:U.S.MoodThroughouttheDay
inferredfromTwitter'[Online].Availableat:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/amislove/twittermood/(Accessed:27August
2012).
Mitchell,M.(2009)Complexity.Aguidedtour.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Mitchell,M.(2006)'Complexsystems:networkthinking'ArtificialIntelligence
170,1194‐1212.
Muhle,M.(2007)EineGenealogiederBioPolitik.EineUntersuchungdes
LebensbegriffsbeiMichelFoucaultundGeorgesCanguilhem.PhDthesis.Europa‐
UniversitätViadrinaFrankfurt(Oder)[Online].Availableat:http://1.static.e‐
corpus.org/download/notice_file/849589/MuhleThese.pdf(Accessed:27
August2012).
Myers,N.(2009)'Performingtheproteinfold',inTurkle,S.(ed.)Simulationand
itsdiscontents.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.
Negri,A.&Hardt,M.(2000)Empire.Cambridge,Mass.andLondon:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Prigogine,I.&Stengers,I.(1984)Orderoutofchaos.Man'snewdialoguewith
nature.London:Heinemann.
Rabinow,P.(1992)'Artificialityandenlightenment:fromsociobiologyto
biosociality',inCrary,J.&Kwinter,S.(eds.)Incorporations.NewYork:Zone,234‐
252.
Rose,N.(2007)Politicsoflifeitself.Biomedicine,power,andsubjectivityinthe
twentyfirstcentury.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Savat,D.(2009)'Deleuze'sobjectile:fromdisciplinetomodulation',inPoster,M.
&Savat,D.(eds.)Deleuzeandnewtechnology.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversity
Press.
Shapin,S.&Schaffer,S.(1985)Leviathanandtheairpump.Hobbes,Boyle,and
theexperimentallife.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
73
Stengers,I.(1997)Powerandinvention.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota
Press.
Vogl,J.(2004)'RegierungundRegelkreis.HistorischesVorspiel',inPias,C.(ed.)
CyberneticsKybernetik.TheMacyConferences19461953.BandIIEssaysund
Dokumente.ZürichandBerlin:Diaphanes,67‐80.
Wiener,N.(1989)Thehumanuseofhumanbeings.Cyberneticsandsociety.
London:FreeAssociation.