Network Society

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Description

1.

"According to M.Castells, networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies

“…the definition, if you wish, in concrete terms of a network society is a society where the key social structures and activities are organized around electronically processed information networks. So it’s not just about networks or social networks, because social networks have been very old forms of social organization. It’s about social networks which process and manages information and are using micro-electronic based technologies.”

(https://medium.com/@cryppix/mission-possible-7fe2129214fa)


2.

“Van Dijk defines the network society as a society in which a combination of social and media networks shapes its prime mode of organization and most important structures at all levels (individual, organizational and societal). He compares this type of society to a mass society that is shaped by groups, organizations and communities (’masses’) organized in physical co-presence.”

(http://www.bravenewcollaboration.com/concepts/)


Characteristics

Mark Whitaker et al. :

"This new media society has been called the ‘network society’ because even though we have always lived in networks, we are now living in microelectronic-enhanced networks that alter the way we organize networks in four ways:

(a ) Flexibility : Electronic networks can reconfigure "according to changing environments, keeping their goals while changing their components. They go around blocking points in communication channels to find new connections.” Past networks lacked such capacities (Castells, 2004)


(b) Scalability: Electronic networks "can expand or shrink in size with little disruption." It was very costly to expand networks in the past, though once a particular platform is set up now, the scalability of electronic networks can be global relatively quickly (Castells, 2004) Similarly, in a Blockchain-based network, any node can join and leave to facilitate the network scalability.


(c) Transparency: Electronic networks can be fully transparent and open to all. All the nodes can connect through the internet to maintain awareness of all transactions, which is particularly clear using platforms based on distributed ledgers wi t h a Bl oc kc ha i n ne t work coll abora tive l y. Shared ledgers are now available to solve the double-spending problem and corruption without clearing transactions. Since such networks are publicly available and incorruptible, this introduces transparency to the system (Singh, Singh, & Kim, 2018)


(d) Survivability: “[B]ecause they have no center,” electronic networks "can operate in a wide range of configurations, and networks can resist attacks on their nodes and codes because the codes of the network are contained in multiple nodes that can reproduce the instructions and find new ways to perform. So, only the physical ability to destroy the connecting points can eliminate the network." Older networks were easily disrupted in such ongoing deliberations, while current electronic networks find such disruptions just a challenge of reorganization instead of an existential crisis (Castells, 2004)."

(https://scholar.kyobobook.co.kr/article/detail/4010028079805)


Discussion

Network Societies vs the Network State

Divya Siddarth, Glen Weyl, Anne-Marie Slaughter:

"If alignment around One Commandment, exit and founders are at the center of Srinivasan’s vision of the network state, pluralism, inter-coordination, fluid recombination and participatory governance are at the center of a network society. While he sees networks as a tool to establish a new order that doesn't require them (who needs a network when you have a single, perfectly aligned community?), networks are at the core of imagining and thriving in a network society. Where he seeks to recruit “citizens of nowhere” to anchor themselves to a new singular identity, we see everyone as being, in different ways, citizens of many communities (e.g. nations, employers, religions) and seek to build systems that can represent these intersectional affiliations to enable accountability previous social systems only empowered for simplistic, singular identities. Where he seeks new sovereignties and independence for thousands of fragmented statelets, we see no conflict between increasingly empowering local (in terms of interests, and not just geography) communities to manage their own affairs and coordinating increasingly globally to address challenges like climate change and pandemics. For the true adherents of a network society, there is no “right scale” of governance; everything is part of a pattern of intersecting, diverse and partially cooperative systems.

TNS poses the crucial problem of our time: how to harness networks to reimagine our political and social systems and make them fit for the 21st century. Yet its answer looks backwards and undermines the very networks it seeks to leverage. We don’t need to choose between reaction and stasis. A brighter future, truer to the richness of our diversely shared lives, could in fact await. But not through network states."

(https://cip.org/blog/network-societies)


More information

URL = http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137415066

Source

The term Network Society was coined by Jan van Dijk in his Dutch book De Netwerkmaatschappij (1991)…