Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron have provided a provocative and necessary
contribution to the emerging debate over the future of "Cyberspace" (or
"Hypermedia").
It is unfortunate that the authors' strident anti-Americanism somewhat detracts
from the validity of their final conclusion - that the "State" has a role in
fostering the development of the new medium, with a view to ensuring its
democratization and accessibility.
By their use of the term "The Californian Ideology" Barbrook and Cameron
seek to foster the illusion that, buried on a hard drive somewhere in
California is a set of guiding principles which underlie the development of W3.
The cognoscenti are presumably given the URL of this "ideology", which
is then ingested, acted upon, actions assessed, ideology modified and so on.
A somewhat cursory search through Infoseek and Alta Vista turned
up one reference - that of the authors' own site at HRC. The existence, then,
of an "ideology" would seem to exist only within the authors' self-constructed,
neo-Marxist universe.
While the conclusion of the paper is valid, the analysis would seem to betray a
woeful ignorance of recent American - and particularly Californian - political,
social and cultural history.
While there is no doubt that the new medium has spawned a flood of optimism
amongst the digerati, the authors' attempts to equate this to a new type
of 'slavery' is risible. "Their Utopian vision of California depends upon a
willful blindness towards the other - much less positive - features of life on
the West Coast: racism, poverty and environmental degradation", they state
with a confidence bordering on arrogance.
It is this writer's opinion and experience that, in fact, the opposite is the
case. That artists and writers are still passionate about these issues; that
the fight against social injustice and environmental exploitation IS
being joined in the new medium. Political, environmental and social activists
are using the new medium to disseminate knowledge and information, forming
previously impossible alliances and exchanging skills, knowledge and expertise
to strengthen their cases against institutions and corporations which have no
appreciation of it - yet.
Perhaps the authors' major analytical flaw is in using the labels "New Left"
and "New Right" as if they still had meaning, not only in the new medium, but
in the context of American politics.
Politics in the US, on a national level, is in process of re-alignment. Ten
years ago, a simple equation could be drawn: "Left" = Democrat/Liberal, "Right"
= Republican. That is no longer the case - for example, Senator Exon - a
Democrat - favors censorship of the Net, while Speaker Gingrich, a Republican,
opposes same. Members of both parties in both houses have changed sides. The
Democrats, in abandoning an interventionist agenda, have finally broken with
the "New Deal" tradition in pursuit of short-term political gain. It is a step
they will rue.
The political process at the national level has divorced itself from the mass
of people and alienated them. Voter participation is low - "representatives"
often represent no-one but themselves and/or their special interests. There
are, of course, exceptions, but this is a view which is current at a mass
perceptual level. Such perceptions inform action - or inaction.
In California, this process is particularly apparent. Pete Wilson was elected
Governor on a rabid anti-immigrant platform. He successfully used the
mainstream media to instill fear into the bosoms of those most likely to vote.
And, because he had the bigger war chest, he carried off the prize. Of course,
the spin-off the authors fail to mention is that his opponent, Dianne
Feinstein, was subsequently elected a Senator, and has been instrumental in
furthering the handgun control agenda - a piece of "liberal" - and many would
say "interventionist" - legislation if ever there was one.
The disillusion of voters is due to one simple fact - the passage of
Proposition 13 in California in 1978. This piece of legislation - voter-driven
- effectively froze revenues from property taxes at 1978 levels. When a piece
of residential property changes hands, the annual tax is assessed at the new
market value - but only when it changes ownership. (Corporations, being
enduring legal fictions, are effectively exempt.) The result has been the
polarization of communities along age lines, with established residents paying
low taxes and younger newcomers paying higher rates.
For several years, the state was able to coast on the accumulated surplus of
the late sixties and early seventies. By the mid/late 1980's, the surplus was
exhausted, and the state started to rein in its activities, cutting grants to
cities and counties. There is widespread acknowledgment, both in and out of the
"virtual" community, of the damaging effects of Proposition 13, particularly in the
education field. Californians bemoan the fall from grace of the University of
California system, which, with the help of immense state subsidies, was
affordable, accessible and enjoyed a reputation for excellence. Alas, no
more....
The new medium upends the existing paradigms for commerce, for social
interaction, for communication - for everything. Participants in the "virtual
world" are, in the very absence of a coherent ideology, being forced to enter
the supermarket of ideas, just to see what's around, to make sense of their
experience. This is part of the process of the redefinition of the political
and social landscape. As ideas and theories are picked up, examined and
rejected, so new ones appropriate to the changed circumstances, will emerge.
Many of these will be syntheses of existing notions. But it would be foolish to
seek to characterize them as either of the "Left" or of the "Right".
The authors make much of the apparent hijacking of credit for W3 development by
private entrepreneurs. They cite the subsidization of Babbage's Difference
Engine by the British Government in the 1830's. Later in their paper, they
make much of the French Government's backing of Minitel. Minitel
may well have been a success at the time. But where is it now? And what about
other, less successful interventionist strategies, like the nationalization of
the French car industry? Along the way, they throw in references to IBM,
flight simulators and just about every gew-gaw of modern life with a
technological bent.
The implication seems to be that everyone who has developed a piece of hard- or
software for use on W3 should, somehow or other, render praise to the Feds for
making it all possible. That is like arguing that the developers of anti-lock
braking systems should give tribute to the Feds because the Government builds
roads!
What is Mark Andreessen to do?
The authors would do well to stop searching every nook and cranny of the Net
for evidence of an "anti-statist ideology". There isn't one.
This truism may be riddled with
inconsistencies, with false perceptions, with an over-adulation (and over
compensation) for corporate entrepreneurs. But it IS a guiding
principle. It has given rise to beauty and ugliness in about equal measure. But
that's the way America works. We may disagree with it, but the credo's very
flexibility leaves it open to change, both from within and without. For
example, Pacific Gas & Electricity has, on numerous occasions, hired
the author of "Ecotopia", Ernest Callenbach, as a consultant on how best
to minimize the utility's environmental impact.
California, in particular, is a state of abundant paradoxes. Consider the
Yosemite valley and South Central LA. In their own ways, access to one - and
the inaccessibility of the other - are both a result of the policies and
practices of private enterprise, tempered by legislative and administrative
action at state and federal levels.
One of California's paradoxes is its love/hate relationship with the State of
California and its agencies. For example, how can CalTrans, responsible for the
construction of Highway 280 (one of the most elegant and environmentally
sensitive freeways in the state), also be responsible for the urban blight
created by the 5 years of inactivity in repairing the Cypress Freeway after the
Loma Prieta Earthquake? How is it that the home of the automobile - Los Angeles
- also has a brand spanking-new public transit system?
Californians are aware of these paradoxes, and about the ambiguities of life in
the state. But how can we talk of "Californians" with any sense of homogeneity?
San Francisco and Los Angeles are in a state of constant cultural warfare, and
both disdain the inhabitants of the Central Valley.....
The fact that the paper millionaires of Silicon Valley choose to live in
Mountain View is, in a sense, irrelevant. Would their work have more integrity
if they lived in East Palo Alto or San Francisco's Mission barrio? Apparently,
the authors of "The Californian Ideology" believe so.
Currently, W3 is an elitist club. Access currently runs at about $3,000 for a
system. Six months ago, it was $5,000. Six months from now, it will probably be
$1,500, with the possibility of the $500 Internet "box" a possibility in the
not too distant future. W3 access will become, in California at least, as
ubiquitous as the automobile. (It would, as an aside, be interesting to learn
the equivalent "subscription rate" for would-be users in the United Kingdom. In
my experience, a dollar price translates to a £ 1:5, making W3 access
in Britain a truly elitist experience.)
How to democratize access is one of the challenges facing all of us, no matter
where we are located geographically. W3 has no boundaries, knows no time. It is
a miraculous medium, which will for ever change our thinking, our feeling, our
range of life experience.
The authors of "The Californian Ideology" are correct in their plea for
further development to be a result of cooperation between the "State" (the
"nation-state"? - an increasingly irrelevant concept...), private industry,
individuals and other, more amorphous collectives of interested participants.
It is unfortunate that a somewhat simplistic, ideologically-burdened analysis
detracts from that message.
January 18, 1996
"The Californian Ideology: A Response"
"ideology n. 1. (arch.) science of ideas; visionary speculation. 2.
manner of thinking characteristic of a class or individual, ideas as the basis
of some economic or political theory or system." [OED].
"The business of America is business".