Finding True North: A Sociological Journey in Late Capitalism

Introduction

Through the development of Western science and technology people around the world

are more and more often coming into contact with each other. Transport and

information connect people more quickly and with greater reach than ever before. What

was previously perceived as isolated and discreet, is now seemingly enmeshed and

interwoven. As Western culture meets head on with other cultures how can we

rationalise this confrontation and to what effect? Through information technology,

Western culture impacts around the globe, but what effect does globalisation have on a

culture which is based socially and politically on a nation-state system (Roosa 2010,

pp1-32)? A recent article in the Australian Financial Review discusses these ideas in

terms of internet censorship and hacking in 'cyber-warfare' between the United States

(US) and China. These two competing ideologies struggle in the global arena over

definitions and boundaries about what constitutes 'reality' and how we ought to live

(Segal 2012, pp1-4). In this sense then, has Western science, which is premised on the

State, in fact freed us from the State? Or by reaching too far have we allowed science to

constrain us? Have we in our own drive for global dominance and power managed to

dispossess ourselves of our own culture and knowledge (Lemonnier 2006, pp79-98)?

The notion that the West is becoming dispossessed of knowledge will be considered in

relation to four theories concerning; enclosure, mobilities, birthright and practices.

Alternately, the question is raised, has Western culture always already anticipated this

type global challenge and critique?

Definitions

Dispossession can be looked at in two ways, at first glance we can perceive it as a sort

of collapse of the fundamental underpinnings of a culture or set of beliefs.

Dispossession, in this sense, seems to suggest more than a drift from centre or a

challenge of boundaries but rather imply a complete destruction, not only of the frames

which support culture but of the entire culture itself. Effectively, the death of a culture,

never to be resurrected and equated with genocide (Lyotard 2004, pp123-128).

1

However, on closer examination we could question whether dispossession in this way is

even possible or whether in fact culture constantly reforms over time, mutating,

adapting, blending and assimilating, constantly living and unable to die, 'playing dead'

(Moore 2008, ppxi-xv). Under the conditions of intense globalisation evidenced during

the late 20th century the basis of Western knowledge certainly does seem to have become

significantly challenged. Much research cites a dumbing down of society, a rejection of

traditional institutions, a loss of meaning and shallowness in our lives (Orwell 1946).

Yet the question remains, are 'these times' unprecedented or simply part of a larger

cycle? Is our current experience of seeming dispossession simply part of a larger

process of possession?

Karl Marx discusses these ideas through notions of enclosure which he refers to as

'dialectical materialism'. His works can be interpreted as a statement about how

meaning varies considerably depending on what is included and what is hidden within a

particular data set, thus we focus on what is included and disregard the possibility of

alternatives. Effectively, the sum of what has been included we take as the whole and

we construct an arrangement of meaning and logic that ties all pieces neatly together.

These are the boundaries that we 'rope off', the completion of the data set, in effect, the

enclosure (Marx and Engels 1932). But when hidden external phenomena meet head on

with this arrangement meaning and logic are challenged and boundaries need to be

renegotiated. Antonio Gramsci writes about this continual pressure from external

phenomena and rearrangement of enclosures as a form of mobility. Over time, any data

set is going to be challenged by those who are not included and needs to be flexible

enough to withstand change if it is to survive. As such, mobility can be seen as a

mechanism or counterpart ensuring the survival of the enclosure, but for the creation of

every new enclosure there is a continual and corresponding destruction of a previous

enclosure. In this way, there is a struggle between the perspectives and positions of

enclosure and mobility because mobility can't really survive without enclosure either

and they struggle over which perspective should take precedence, which perspective

should be the point of reference and come first. In this way, the notion of birthright

implies ultimate priority and power to 'define', and is itself continuously both the origin

and the resolution of this dynamic for an instantaneous moment in time. And through

this struggle life itself is continually reproduced back and forth through this successive

toggling continuum or wave cycle between enclosure and mobility. Henceforth, larger

2

cycles are both built into and surround this dynamic of reproduction and are perpetuated

through social practices. Each generation resists the 'old' and discovers the 'new' and is

seated within larger frames of the human life span, the 'system' always already

anticipating these ebbs and flows (Gramsci 1933, pp1-4). Practices are what ensure the

longevity of these cycles and the intervals in between. These become embedded and

naturalised through customs, rituals, norms, morals, ethics and the like, sometimes

referred to as 'regimes of representation' (Mackie 2012, pp116-117).

Media Article

An interval of this cycle has been captured in a recent media article in the Australian

Financial Review which outlines the struggle over such practices between China and the

US. Each struggles over how behaviour should be conducted in the online world and

how this relates to and impacts offline life. Each struggles for dominance and the

opportunity to define what 'knowledge' should include and what the value of that

knowledge should be. China's efforts to preserve its own ideas in the online world seem

in every way only to thwart what makes Western knowledge robust. The article is titled

“China's cyber stealth on new frontline”, is dated 20 March, 2012 and authored by

Adam Segal. It outlines each State's interpretation of survival and morality concerning

online behaviour. The article reports online hacking into highly confidential American

government and military sites plus a myriad of private American based businesses, a

breach which can be traced back to China. Western policymakers want China and the

US to come to an agreement about the rights involved with intellectual property and

want to formalise an agreement or code for online behaviour. US rationale works on the

premise that in time China will become heavily dependent on the cyberworld like the

US experiences today and will benefit from such a code in the future. However, China

views online information as fair game and continues to view the US as an economic and

military threat. Segal states, 'Washington and Beijing won't agree to a broad treaty

governing cyberspace mainly because they hold fundamentally incompatible views on

the internet and society.' (Segal 2012, p1). China states that US attempts at

technological and cultural unity are only an effort to 'lock the rest of the world into the

technology standards dominated by US companies.' (Segal 2012, p2). China wants to

devise its own technology standards and resists what it perceives to be US control

disguised as a sense of 'fair play' and morality (Segal 2012, p2).

3

The US government wants to promote digital structure as privileging neither domestic

nor global, commercial nor non-profit actors. It perceives the internet as open and

based on freedom of speech and human rights. In contrast, China highly regulates what

can be viewed on the internet by its citizens while also regulating the content that

Chinese Government and citizens upload. The Chinese Government desire to innovate

internally and reject global standards, but pressure will mount if they wish to export

products and remain competitive (Segal 2012, pp1-2). Alternately, the Chinese

Government tolerate Chinese citizen's use of the internet for political dissent, a type of

release valve. For example, when a Chinese human rights activist won the Nobel Peace

Prize in 2010 many Chinese hackers damaged the organisation's website in retribution

for perceived Western interference. Perhaps in a similar vein, the US should look

inwardly and rather than attempting to govern globally should focus on its own security.

The US Government could provide incentives for private security companies to invest

more heavily in research and upgrades to combat hackers (Segal 2012, p2). Likewise

security companies could deploy systems to 'lure attackers into so-called honeypots,

decoy computers sometimes baited with fake data.' (Segal 2012, p3). Further, the US

could, through legitimate channels, impose trade sanctions on China through the World

Trade Organisation if it won't cease attacks, but espionage is not illegal in international

law so the US has to be measured in its response. The law is fairly clear on State

behaviour but blurs when it comes to private companies. As such, the US would have

more scope mounting an offensive on personal or individual computers. For example,

viruses known as 'zero-days' could be used to penetrate Chinese data (Segal 2012, p3).

But this could simply go back and forth indefinitely and while the US defends itself it

also needs to look toward a solution with the Chinese Government and aim for open

channels of dialogue. Both sides have common threats and irritants online which could

instead become a focus. Segal gives the example of online con artists who trick people

into disclosing their bank details, additionally, the high levels of email spam circulating.

Meanwhile the US could rally other countries to support the formation of a new set of

online norms putting pressure on China to conform. Additionally, exposing China's

hacking crimes on an international stage may threaten its long term relations with other

countries and therefore entice China to conform. Segal states that the US Government

needs to be proactive in its endeavour to stop cybercrime and to try to coordinate and

4

lead other countries firmly furnishing a new set of practices in the online world before

China does (Segal 2012, pp3-4).

How the theories elucidate the article

If we refer back to the differing ways that we can view dispossession in light of this

article by Segal, we can see that to view dispossession as simply loss or destruction is to

view only from one side. When we look in this way, we can only see in the struggle

between China and the US a winner and a loser where only one or the other can prevail.

Often the discourse here is of everybody benefiting, but this would be within a smaller

enclosure and under the conditions of the winning ideology. In effect, the Chinese

perspective is baited by the promise of inclusion and yet at the same time is consumed

by the West. As such, indigenous Chinese culture is excluded in this process of

inclusion (Chomsky 2002, pp3-31). The Chinese are aware of this contradiction, hence

their hesitation to comply with Western devised online codes of practice. And while we

can view relations between the two as a dichotomy or by what Marx refers to as a class

within itself, we could also perceive this struggle through a dialectic, rather a class for

itself, and envisage how both can live within a constant state of negotiation. Although

one side's loss is the other side's gain in this instance, a space is created for both sides at

all times to some degree. Rather than just two poles everything in between is included,

every act of negotiation (Marx & Engels 1932). In this way, the US allowing China and

the US to work on two separate playing fields on two separate levels, the US perceiving

they are on the dominant and higher level, is not only more fair to China but also

ensures its ongoing possession. Ultimately, this is an aspect of democracy and the

Western way, but by possessing ourselves we also allow China to possess itself

(Gramsci 1933, pp1-4). From a Western perspective, by being true to ourselves and

trying our hardest not only do we honour our adversary but we also allow them to be

their best. In this respect, we all rise, but we have to challenge each other first, when we

do otherwise everyone it seems falls into a state of dispossession (Rachels 1993, pp117-

126). In this way, we can see that on both levels the US will prevail, it can't lose. When

the US includes China within its enclosure it excludes China of its culture and US

culture dominates alone, and when the US excludes China and allows it its autonomy

the US wins on moral high-ground with both sides included (Segal 2012, pp1-4).

Enclosure is evidently intimately connected with dispossession and operates as a form

5

of reflected or contradictory power, in some instances its power in fact deriving from its

seeming negation.

However, this process does not occur without effect also on Western culture, for the US

too is impacted by its relations with China. While the US is including and excluding

China, China acts as an external phenomena complicating currently accepted Western

norms. China's challenge and critique of what seems to us both natural and realised

disrupts our complacency. We struggle with the disparities that arise from a comparison

between the two cultures and find that many Chinese ideas don't commensurate with the

Western 'system' of values, such as online hacking. We begin to feel defensive and

doubt our beliefs, and to sense that perhaps there is something outside of the 'set' which

was previously our entire world, something we hadn't considered. But this is a

continual process of reinvention and renewal, re-framing, equating and rationalising

new information to formulate a new and stable whole. And while it may seem more

convenient and comfortable to stagnate at times, we need this interference in order to

survive and to feel a drive for change. We can see that while the US has a voice in this

scenario, China does also, there is an input from both sides (Jackson 2009, pp357-385).

Segal states in the media piece that the Chinese heavily regulate information that is

viewed and downloaded by its citizens but allows the internet to be used, often through

hacking, to voice political dissent 'and as a sort of release valve for frustrated citizens.'

(Segal 2012, p2). This is what challenges, stimulates and motivates us and so

perpetuates change. Participation in this situation will be vital, engaged and committed

on both sides alternating back and forth with ideas and opinions while also alternating

back and forth between frames of knowledge. Each will provide feedback to the other

and enable self-reflection on both sides. Within this framework, Western knowledge

operates ably, anticipating such critique and continually readjusting (Hinman 2003,

pp135-156). Challenge only makes us more resolute, more deliberate and more aware

while also may help resolve anomalies and vulnerabilities within our own social sphere

(Chomsky 2002, pp3-31).

Ultimately though, this struggle between enclosure and mobility isn't without some sort

of anticipated effect. Struggle occurs in an effort to gain a dominant position and under

conditions of a usual flow, external phenomena can be easily handled but when that

flow becomes too rapid the system cannot sufficiently regenerate. Under these

6

circumstances the mechanisms of the system become fragile and exposed. We start to

lose trust in our system and our knowledge, perhaps we have become too aware of our

mechanics before we have had time to rationalise or understand them. All we can see is

contradiction and confusion. The logic of our enclosure is in direct contradiction to the

logic of our mobility, meaning becomes negligible and time begins to slow down.

Without meaning we become trapped in a single moment and grind to a halt. It's almost

like time itself has slowed down and jarred stop within a 'moment', the moment of zero,

the instantaneous transition between destruction and creation. Time has stopped within

time. Effectively, the old has been destroyed and the new is yet to be created (Lyotard

2004, pp123-138). Everything seems adrift and stagnant, and all that can be seen

ironically is mobility, the contradiction continues, and there is no sight of enclosure.

Although this seems like a space without place, what really has been created and now

dominates is the external phenomena, the exclusion has become the inclusion and vice

versa. The two positions have been swapped yet this event is largely obfuscated.

Western knowledge is both upside down and inside out (Baudrillard 1988, pp166-182).

The question remains, is this process the dispossession of Western knowledge as we

know it? Has Western knowledge broken down? At first glance it would appear such a

confrontation has caused a collapse of our entire system. It can't be created or renewed

because it has already now been created and renewed by mobilities under her terms, but

the flow has become motionless (Laclau 2006, pp107-110).

To add insult to injury, there are pirates at sea trying to seduce mobilities and become

her enclosure, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the situation. The pirates have

lured the West onto a cruise-ship and want to keep everyone at sea so that they can

continually rob them. They have convinced the West to live on the ship and many are

unaware that they have also disabled the ship's engine, nobody could get back to land

even if they wanted to (Chilcote 1990, pp3-19). Has Western knowledge anticipated

this turn of events? It wouldn't seem likely (Cahill 2010). Segal, at this point, suggests

US retreat, he suggests that perhaps the US needs to look inwardly and focus on its own

security and defence rather than concerning itself with global dominance. Segal

discusses implementing domestic US measures to combat hacking, alternatively

distracting hackers with fake US Government sites and fake data. He also mentions US

trade sanctions on China and attacks on Chinese personal computers by implementing

viruses such as 'zero-days' (Segal 2012, pp2-3). It becomes like Waterworld, an

7

artificial water-based landmass and people are slowly forgetting about the States. This

seems like a step backward for the US to engage in this way on Chinese terms and to

respond in kind, but perhaps the US needs to go backward in order to move forward.

They seem to have lost their land, their States and their knowledge, even their ability to

be aware of this situation. They can't get back to land and they can't undo what has

been done (Keller 2001, pp61-62). Those who remember the States reminisce, they are

used to looking down and in front of them, meanwhile the others don't believe them and

think they are dreaming, they are the ones who are used to looking up and over their

shoulder (Marx & Engels 1932). In the distance they can all can see where the ocean

meets the sky, the horizon, everywhere it is horizon and nothing in between. They all

end up in two small separate life rafts, and no matter how much they paddle they never

seem to move, their labour has been rendered futile. The ocean is so flat and they seem

to go round in circles, and it's getting dark. The night is cold and miserable, nobody

speaks, they just stare vacantly at their own reflections in the ocean's dark surface

(Laclau 2006, p105).

But in the morning the sun begins to rise and they feel it's warmth, a hawk circles

above. Perhaps if they look inside themselves they will find the answer. Lo and behold,

an epiphany strikes the group that looks up and behind, they experience the sentience

that everybody must all join together and work equally if they are going to make any

headway. They also decide that they desperately need to formulate some sort of

purpose. As an apparent afterthought, the other group declare that they know what that

purpose can be and remember the navigational tools which they have stowed but weren't

of much use on the cruise-ship. What an amazing turn of events! The holiday ends and

they all set to work (Laclau 2006, pp111-114). The first group state that they will

paddle while the second group navigates. They don't mind paddling and doing all the

manual labour because they imagine they are on a speedboat with an outboard motor,

the wind rushing through their hair. They imagine that each group holds two points of

the compass so to speak, and that if they pool their resources they will all be able to

navigate with some purpose. The navigational group though realise that they actually

have three points of the compass stowed already, and the other group can't even see their

point of the compass but must instead rely on a small southern constellation, sometimes

referred to as Sigma, but which they have named 'Polaris'! The navigators realise that

when they get back to land they will no longer need the life raft to be paddled, they just

8

need to get back to land so that they can get in contact with the Chinese (Fisk 1989,

pp159-162). It is at this stage that Segal mentions the US and Chinese talking together

about their common problems with online vagrants and how these can be dealt with.

Down the track, the US, Segal suggests, could talk similarly with other countries and

start formulating some online norms, gradually putting pressure on Chinese hacking

with international support. The US could then publicly expose Chinese hacking which

may put pressure on some of China's relations with other countries. The articles states

that the US needs to stop cyber-crime and work with other countries to implement a

new set of norms in the online world before China normalises hacking (Segal 2012,

pp3-4).

Conclusion

Astonishingly, the media article seems to end exactly where it began, but we aren't

where we started. The difference is that the channel of communication between the US

and the Chinese is now direct rather than mediated through technology. We can see

how this mediation creates a distortion in the message and separates us from a position

where we can make our own judgements. The message is that it is not the result that is

important, it is the means and we each need to engage and experience the process.

Evidently, we need to understand an idea of dispossession in order to understand and

appreciate what we already have. Likewise, Marx applied this dynamic to the economy

and taught us how to think and act politically both domestically and internationally.

This is what Segal is trying to convey when he writes about US and Chinese relations in

cyberspace, he is showing us that we never lost our knowledge, it just felt like it and we

ended up in a place where we needed some 'internal' dialogue as well as something

phenomenal in order to realise it? We just needed to talk to each other, face to face.

9

REFERENCES:

Baudrillard, J 1988, 'Simulacra and simulations' in Selected Writings, Polity, Cambridge

Cahill, D 2010, Neoliberalism, Crisis and Socially Embedded Economy, accessed

26/7/2012, http://sydney.edu.au/arts/political_economy/downloads/Damien_Cahill.pdf

Chilcote, R 1990, 'Post-Marxism: The Retreat from Class in Latin America', Latin

American Perspectives, Vol. 17, Iss. 3, pp3-24

Chomsky, N 2002, 'A propaganda model' in Manufacturing Consent: The Political

Economy of the Mass Media, Random House, New York

Fisk, M 1989, 'Intellectuals, values and society', Philosophy & Social Criticism, Iss. 15,

pp151-165

Gramsci, A 1933, The Modern Prince: Analysis of Situations, Relations of Force,

accessed 17/8/2012, http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/1933,+Gramsci,

+Analysis+of+Situations,+Relations+of+Force

Hinman, L 2003, 'The ethics of consequences: utilitarianism', in Ethics: A Pluralistic

Approach to Moral Theory, 3rd ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont, California

Jackson, P 2009, 'Capitalism and Global Queering: National Markets, Parallels Among

Sexual Cultures, and Multiple Queer Modernities', A Journal of Lesbian and Gay

Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp357-395

Keller, D 2001, 'Deconstruction: fad or philosophy?', Humanitas, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp58-

68

Laclau, E 2006, 'Ideology and post-Marxism', Journal of Political Ideologies, Vol. 11,

Iss. 2, pp103-114

10

Lemonnier, P 2006, 'The Hunt for Authenticity', The Journal of Pacific History, Vol. 39,

Iss. 1, pp79-98

Lyotard, J F 2004, 'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge', in Drolet, M

(ed.), The Postmodern Reader, London, Routledge

Mackie, V 2012, 'The 'Afghan Girls': Media representations and frames of war',

Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Vol.26, Iss. 1, pp115-131

Marx, K and Engels, F 1932, The German Ideology: Marx/Engels Internet Archive,

accessed 26/7/2012, (marxists.org) 2000

Moore, J D 2008, 'An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists', in

Visions of Culture, AltaMira Press, Lanham

Orwell, G 1946, Politics and the English Language, accessed 1/8/2010,

http://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Rachels, J 1993, 'Are there absolute moral rules?' in Elements of Moral Philosophy,

McGraw-Hill, New York

Roosa, S A 2010, 'What is Sustainable Development?' in Sustainable Development

Handbook (2nd ed.), The Fairmont Press, Inc., Lilburn, GA

Segal, A 2012, China's cyber stealth on new frontline, accessed 1/4/2013,

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/china_cyber_stealth_on_new_frontline_z6YvFR0

mo3uC87zJvCEq6H

11