|
Reviewer
biography
Current Reviews
Review Articles
Book Reviews Archive
|
The
Exploit: A Theory of Networks
by Alexander R. Galloway and Eugene
Thacker
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,
2007
Electronic Mediations, volume 21
256 pp. Trade,
$57.00; paper, $18.95
ISBN: 978-0-8166-5043-9; ISBN: 978-0-8166-5044-6.
Reviewed by Geoff Cox
The Exploit follows in a critical tradition that takes networks to be a key organizational
principle for understanding contemporary politics and life in general. Networks
are undoubtedly pervasive – for example, from the activities of peer-to-peer
file-sharing or swarm intelligence to the operations of economic and financial
markets or viruses – but the book is not a further example of technophilic
or popular scientific strands but an extension of the critical discourse
that has developed around network culture (such as, for example, Rossiter’s Organized
Networks and Terranova’s Network
Culture).
Exemplified by its title - a term used by crackers to take advantage of vulnerabilities
in networks - the book demonstrates an understanding of how networks operate
technically and politically. Suitably, perhaps, it does not follow a conventional
academic structure but instead offers a more speculative and experimental
approach opening with a short explanatory section on how to take advantage
of the book (or perhaps make it vulnerable): the reader is invited to experience
the book across the ‘prolegomenon’ (foreword), its
‘nodes’ (part I) and ‘edges’ (part II), and ‘coda’;
there is the added suggestion to skim the first section by reading italicized
sections only (a particularly tempting suggestion for any reviewer). That the
reader is informed how to do this in itself says something about the paradoxical
subject of the book: in addressing the power relations between sovereignty
and networks.
The first section goes into detail on the current ‘state of emergency
today in the West’ in the context of the end of the cold war,
the rise of the networked economy and politics after 9/11. The exceptional
character of the United States (evoking Schmitt’s Politische
Theologie of 1922, and indeed Agamben’s State
of Exception of 1995) is central to this in relation to an understanding of a system
of control that appears to have migrated from decentralized hubs to
the
‘material fabric of distributed networks’. Rather than take contemporary
sovereignty associated with the unilateralist/totalitarian position of the
U.S. to lie in opposition to a description of networked informatic control,
Galloway and Thacker argue for new understandings of the exceptional character
of sovereignty in the age of networks. In this sense, they are following Hardt
and Negri's Empire (in which power is everywhere and nowhere) but also characterisations
of power in the work of Nietzsche, Foucault in which power as plural and decentralised,
and others in which power is seen to be ever more mediatised and yet is inadequately
identified and named.
As is returned to again and again in the book, network forms
of organization actually prescribe power relations and control
structures (p. 70). The authors argue that more adequate topologies
are required that allow a way to rethink power relations ‘diagrammatically’ in
a manner appropriate to networks and reflecting contemporary
political dynamics: ‘an approach to understanding networks
that takes into account their ontological, technological, and
political dimensions’ (p. 58). This position is further
and most significantly underpinned by an understanding of biopolitics in the work of Foucault and control in Deleuze, to the concept
of the protocol as ‘both an apparatus that facilitates networks and
a logic that governs how things are done within that apparatus’ (p.29).
These issues converge around the issue of security in the challenge
of managing the networked relations between technologies and
biologies – in the curation of viruses (n the sense of
caring and curing) and in the management of life itself (referring
to Agamben’s distinction between bare life and the political
subject). Resistance in the context of biopolitics is an active
part of dynamic living networks - as
‘life-resistance’ (p. 78) and as ‘multitude’ (p. 150).
For the argument of the book, discussion hinges on the relations between the
human and unhuman that constitutes the network. Networks involve shifts of
scale such that action can no longer be attributed to individual agents but
to distributed action throughout the network – more in terms of ‘edges’ than ‘nodes’ in
their terms.
The network has evidently become a manifestation of ideology
in itself - and one in which connectivity remains a security
threat beyond a purely technical form (in offering a platform
for terrorism or counter-terrorism alike). This is the new
'network-network symmetry' of power that follows ‘power
laws’ of variable, uneven and unequal distribution,
and that has learned from history to use all varieties of
authority and organization at its disposal. The authors even
go as far to describe the dynamic as dialectical in as much
as control is distributed relatively autonomously in horizontal
organizational locales and at the same time into rigid vertical
hierarchies or directed commands. This is a socio-technical
truism of course, and one that supports the claim that networks
and sovereignty are not incompatible. Indeed together they
are ‘exceptional’
and are always related as ‘sovereignty-in-networks’.
For the authors, this is what makes the American regime so
beguiling. Correspondingly, the recommendation to those seeking
regime change, or developing oppositional tactics in general,
is to take advantage of the vulnerabilities in networks (much
like successful computer viruses do) – by exploiting
power differentials that exist in the system, thereby uncovering
new exploits.
|