Showing posts with label Castells. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Castells. Show all posts

December 17, 2010

Castells - Toward a Sociology of the Network Society

Castells analyses the social changes that have occurred which have led to the emergence of a 'new society.'
  1. New technological paradigm  New ITs allow for new forms of social organisation and interaction.  Such organisation and interaction occurs via electronic information networks.
  2. Globalisation  [With hindsight we recognise early evidence of globalisation in past eras, but without electronically-based communication networks, it could never reach today's total coverage.  I'm hard pressed to think of one corner of the world that has not yet been overrun by mankind or that has not been touched by Western "civilisation."  Here I think of the rubbish accumulated around the base camp of Mount Everest.]
  3. Internet  [I don't think any comment is necessary, suffice to say that, contrary to the first pundits, the Internet does not unify people in democratic harmony.  Whoever goes on line, immediately seeks out like-minded individuals/organisations.  He will not view sites that put out an ideology which he is hostile to.  Few people will attempt to find out why their opponents think the way they do; instead they will turn to sites that echo their own worldview.
  4. Death of the sovereign nation-state   Alliances struck between countries affect internal power structures.  Think, for example, of countries belonging to the EU.  [National boundaries are being redrawn and/or becoming more transparent, and few countries can act in isolation without due consideration to their 'partners'.]
  5. "Crisis of patriarchy"  Family forms have changed; the 'heterosexual-couple-with-2-kids model no longer holds sway.  Other family models have emerged which have become feasible alternatives.
  6. Scientific progress   Among other things, there is a new awareness of man's relationship with the environment, which has brought about changes in production, consumption, etc.
This article also neatly summarises Castell's work on networks, spatial structure, and space of flows, and makes a useful accompaniment to his book, Rise of the Network Society.


How will the above prove useful to my thesis?  Well, for a start I think we can see incipient forms of many of the above dimensions in turn of the century Britain.  Regarding the Internet, obviously this did not exist in 1900 but if we adopt Standage's views on the telegraph (coupled with a highly efficient postal system), then we can say that society at that time had access to a system of express information exchange.




Questions
What is the role of the telephone network in creating this "new society?"  E.g. was it instrumental in bringing about any social change (as per the above dimensions)?
Did it promote or hinder?



Manual Castells.  "Toward a Sociology of the Network Society."  Contemporary Sociology Vol 29, No 5 (Sept. 2000), 693-699.

December 14, 2010

Castells - Rise of the Network Society

Some random notes on 'space,' hopefully to be put to good use later.

Castells differentiates between space of places and space of flows, where space is a concept based on experience.
"If we look at space as a social form and a social practice, throughout history space has been the material support of simultaneity in social practice.  That is, space defines the time frame of social relationships."
The city is a "communication system" where physical proximity allows more communication.
A new form of spatiality is the space of flows: "the material support of simultaneous social practices communicated at a distance."

A connection exists between 
  • society's changing technological character; and 
  • its developing spatial forms.
Acceleration of time
We've all noticed it - too many tasks, not enough time.  There are still 'only' twenty-four hours in a day but quite often they aren't enough.  Our social practices are restricted within their time frames but are carried out in different places.  We use technology (mobile phones, computers, transport) to help us overcome the physical barriers, to the point where we almost reach "timeless time."  Timeless time (as opposed to clock time or biological time) is 
"the social practice that aims at negating sequence to install ourselves in perennial simultaneity and simultaneous ubiquity."  
In other words, trying to be everywhere, all the time, at the same time!


Manuel Castells.  The Information Age.  Economy, Society, and Culture.  Vol. I: The Rise of the Network Society (2010).

November 26, 2010

The decay of manners

Conservatives (with a small 'c') of every age despair of the lowering of standards and the disruptions-intrusions that innovations bring to their hitherto cosy little worlds.  1913 was no different to any other era.

"R.F.S." writes in The Academy (21 June 1913) of how manners have decayed, thanks to that "most domestic of the great inventions."  Looking first at business use and then domestic use, the author would seem to concede that the telephone has indeed been domesticated, since it was first viewed as a tool for business.  If it was installed in a private residence, it was only because even businessmen sometimes have to go home and rest.


Deterioration of business manners
The author finds it objectionable when he is consulting a lawyer or doctor and he doesn't enjoy that professional's undivided attention, because the lawyer makes or receives telephone calls during the appointment.  The visitor feels as if the professional is
interviewing another, an invisible client
and,
the [client] is troubled by the imaginary presence of a third party, by the obtrusion of a piece of business with which he has no concern.
The phenomenon is a familiar one even today.  You're speaking with someone (friend, consultant, colleague) and his phone (mobile or landline) rings.  He breaks off to answer and you stand around, feeling uncomfortably, not knowing where to look until the call is over, and trying to appear as if you're not listening to the one-sided conversation.  I think this is true when you are a visitor, then you are obliged, in a way, to eavesdrop on the conversation.  At least I personally feel uncomfortable when in these situations and if the call seems to be dragging on, then I go and wait outside till its over.  In a similar vein, how annoying it is when a stranger talks (usually loudly) on his mobile in a public space and we're all forced to listen to his petty private details.  It is a distraction to which we find ourselves drawn.  But I digress.


Deterioration of domestic manners
The author asserts again that those physically present with us take priority over someone else who is merely present 'in spirit' or on paper, hence the custom that people should not read their letters at the dinner table.


New technologies mean that our definition of "present company" must be revised and "R.F.S." does admit that this definition needs to be enlarged to accommodate those who are 'present' via a telephone connection.  Here we can apply Thrift's discussion on "being with" others and his whale example.  In pre-telephone days you could only be with someone who was physically present (though the telegraph was quicker than letter writing, it was still nevertheless like written correspondence in the sense that there could be no immediate interaction with your interlocutor - the two people communicating do not share the same space or time).  In the telephone era, communication was immediate; you don't wait for a response to your comment.  Both parties occupy the same simultaneous time and space (not physical space, of course, but rather the 'space of flows' [Castells] or to be more prosaic, the same piece of copper wire).


So, to conclude, the telephone forced Edwardian society to re-evaluate just what they meant by "present company".  Their rules of polite society dictated that you give your full attention to those standing in front of you.  If you turned to someone who wasn't there in the flesh (represented by a letter or phone call) then that was rude and the other party was an intruder.


The writer censures hosts who worsen established rules by getting up from the dinner table to answer the telephone.  Have you ever tried to ignore a ringing telephone, either at home or work, or even a public phone in the street?  It is very difficult.  (I think the only exception would be if I knew the caller's identity - thanks to caller ID - and it was someone I didn't want to speak to.)


The writer equates letters with phone calls: we read our correspondence at breakfast time so that might be a good time to make a telephone call.  However, morning is not the usual time to make calls or receive callers - we know that 'morning calls' are made between 3.00pm and 6.00pm.  


Social invitations by telephone
When organising a formal event that required lots of forward planning, the host should really send out written invitations.  A telephone call only gradually became acceptable for very informal occasions, organised at short notice, and when inviting close friends.  The writer finds telephone invitations issued at the last minute as "less honourable."  Reading between the lines, it sounds as if a person invited at such short notice is being used as a stop-gap or a last-minute replacement to make up the numbers, someone from the 'reserve list.'  'If you deserve an invitation, you get a fancy card to display on your mantelpiece.'  Otherwise, how can you demonstrate your social credibility as an invited guest if you've only got a telephone invitation, which leaves no evidence.

The writer's solution to retard the decaying process?  Regulate telephone usage: custom should dictate when the time is appropriate to make a telephone call, as was the case with personal visits.  He wouldn't have been very pleased with 21st-century manners: they are not only decaying, they are positively putrid.


R.F.S.  "The Telephone and the Decay of Manners."  Academy and Literature, 2146 (21 June 1913), p786.

November 20, 2010

Dematerialization of telecommunication

How does "being connected globally" affect local development?

Appearance and spread of telegraph coincided with:
*growing global trade links [connections]
*increasing volume of trade [quantity, volume]

A close link exists between:
*development of telegraph in a region
*the region's position in world trade
            Global spread of telegraphy has positive effects on world trade.

When communications and transport are separated a new virtual space is created.
In this new virtual space, relations between time and space are changed.

A new technology will spread and be adopted only when:
*there is a demand for it
*the new tech. offers clear advantages over the other alternatives
Public demand must be balanced against the effects of "technological inertia" (Mokyr).

Railway expansion created need for telegraph in order to co-ordinate trains.


per Castells
A network has no centre and therefore no periphery.
No single node is essential to the network.
If a node fails, the network reconfigures and works around the failed node.
Some nodes are more important than other nodes.

Telegraphy spreads quickly:
*Railway companies see the benefits and (no longer put off by high costs) erect lines along railway tracks [---> cumulative action of technologies; ---> mutual benefits for both telegraph and railway companies]
*Newspapers exploit telegraphy for obtaining news more quickly
*Law enforcement forces use telegraphy to fight crime -- a telegram is quicker than a murderer!


Parallels can be seen between social networks [connections among people] and telecommunications networks.  In both networks, some nodes are:
*more important than other nodes;

*closer to the flow of information than other nodes.  
A word of caution re. the analogy of social networks for comm. networks.  The connections in social networks only register when interaction/communication between two nodes occurs.  A similar connection between two nodes in a comm. network registers the potential for communication, i.e. the nodes exist but a flow of information may not be present during our examination.  The infrastructure is in place but the information flow is not necessarily present or continuous.


In order to describe a country as a communications centre, it needs:
*an advanced domestic telegraph system
*good connections to other foreign networks

Roland Wenzlhuemer.  "The dematerialization of telecommunication: communication centres and peripheries in Europe and the world, 1850-1920."  Journal of Global History (2007) 2, 345-372.


November 11, 2010

Living London

“[Voices] … flow over our heads, around us, and under our feet in a ceaseless silent chorus.”
Castells’ “space of flows” – these voices are sealed inside the system and no one hears them when passing by; the only ones to hear are “those for whom they are intended.”

Content of the conversations
  • A City trader’s instructions
  • Party invitation [were invitations delivered by phone socially acceptable by now, compared to written ones?]
  • Household order to a tradesman

Traffic flow lessens during the night; calls are made for emergencies:
  • Call for a doctor
  • Fire
  • Police
Author gives extensive description of telephone use at the Stock Exchange, IMMEDIATELY following an account of the death-defying engineers and linesmen who repair and maintain the wires.  The hidden reading seems to be saying: 'the telephone is primarily for business use.'

National Telephone Company
  • Operators are recruited from well-to-do, respectable families (doctors, lawyers, etc.)
  • They need to be literate, numerate
  • Training given on full pay
  •  No night work, this is done by male colleagues
  • Women wear gloves while working to protect hands (!) – was it such rough work?  These ladies would not want to have hands that looked as if they belonged to working-class girls or washerwomen.
  •  The “kindly” NTC provided overalls for the girls to wear over their own dresses.  Otherwise a poorly dressed girl would be “distracted” by the fineries worn by her neighbour.  Socialist uniformity, or schoolroom discipline?

More space of flows
Telephone traffic has peaks and troughs, according to the business being conducted around London. 
  • The City stops its activities at 7.00pm
  • West End is busy 10.00pm till midnight
  • Holborn wakes up early – residents here have dealings with Smithfield Meat Market
The exchange as a temporal microcosm of all of London life

Operators’ dining facilities
Much is made (here, and elsewhere) of the sumptuous and generous catering facilities available to the operators.  Scant reference is made to the girls’ actual duties, general working conditions, relationships with supervisors/other operators, the public’s perception of their job.  I don’t think we have any first-hand accounts from operators themselves about their job?  Why this imbalance in reporting?
  • Need to present the job in favourable light in order to attract new recruits: high turnover (?) – girls left upon marriage and had to be replaced.
  • This was a menial job performed by single girls whose job prospects in these years were seriously circumscribed.  But their participation was VITAL for the running of the telephone system – if the girls decided to down tools and strike, the whole telephone network would be useless.  By emphasising the fringe benefits, perhaps we are pampering to the operators to keep them satisfied (and not pack in their jobs)?  And perhaps by emphasising these benefits, the general public is left with the impression that the telephone company holds its operators in high esteem and appreciates the part the girls play in keeping the system up and running every day?



Henry Thompson.  “Telephone London.”  In Living London.  Vol. III., ed. George R. Sims.  London, 1903; p.115-119.




Creative Commons License
Digital Telephone Book by Elizabeth Chairopoulou is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.