A ‘Society of Control’; Only in the Minds of Academic Lib Kooks
This book has been getting some attention since it was published and, well, that really bothers me for a few reasons. It was written by an nontenured lit professor and an Italian inmate and I feel its total bullshit, delusions of paranoid sci-fi influenced post-modernist libs. What follows is my refuting their basic ideas the best I can in three or four pages. ‘Empire’ and ‘society of control’ are used synonymously in the piece. Also ‘biopower’ is used as a kind of human-based mechanism whereby the empire can expand through a sort of homogenization (...or something - Its kinda difficult to deal with these kooks using their terminology). Also I apologize in advance for citing people like Foucault, who I know many or all of you take issue with, but one must meet and beat these bastards on their own playground. Enjoy.
------------------------------------------------
A ‘society of control’ does not characterize contemporary international politics. There are many things that seem to evidence the existence and spread of ‘Empire’; a transnational, decentralized, self-propagating entity of networks; but this evidence actually reinforces the traditional sovereign states model and traditional inter-state relations. While it is clear that some aspects of the ‘society of control’ idea are true; for example, we have seen a shift from the disciplinary, Cold War-style discrete social norms to more post-modern norms (Hart 178, Campbell 172, L. 12/7). Working against this is the current popularity of nationalism, reminiscent of the Cold War, which continues to reinforce state sovereignty. Furthermore, many states reject the idea of Empire and the proliferation of capitalism – many of these states are not isolated and interact in business and politics with states that would generally be tempting candidates for inclusion in the Empire. When these more powerful, ‘society of control’ states interact with anti-capitalist or more socialist states, the importance of the state status and sovereignty is reinforced through mutual recognition and the accompanying diplomatic protocols (Bull 263). Even transnational banks and businesses, entities that seem to be part of the key to extending the ‘Empire’, interact and do business only with and within sovereign states. It is the stability and presence of a traditional states-system that recognizes and allows the business or the bank access – in this way, phenomenon that can be perceived as the spread of the ‘Empire’ actually only can occur in the continued presence of the sovereign states-system (Bull 254, 262). If the ‘Empire’s’ prerogative to use force is based around the idea of maintaining a just outcome, the states-system must be recognized in order to determine the justness of any inter-regional relations, war, or exploitation (Hart 10, 18; L. 12/7). Ultimately, a ‘society of control’ is not desirable since it will remove the control from the populace (and its representatives) of any one region or country. While it is clear that under ‘Empire’ the entire globe obviously won’t have the same laws and cultural diversity will remain somewhat; a sacrifice of control, self-determination, and freedom would need to be made by the entire population of the ‘Empire’ – in short, it will be less just than the current international states-system, which is to say it will be a very grim result (L. 12/7). The question of the ‘Empire’s’ success will hinge on ideology and whether the ‘Empire’ has the ‘biopower’ required to instill widespread complacency in the global population (Hart 23).
(more...)





