[Note: This text was originally written several years
ago; I
think it was around the time of the French nuclear tests in the South
Pacific, and after the debacle in Somalia (but before things like the
Rwandan genocide). It was also during a time when many Net groups were
being disrupted in various ways. I
have not yet reframed it completely to account for recent events, though I
have updated some outdated references. I will probably rewrite this when
time permits, but the basic ideas will be the same... except I think I
will talk more about the fourth group involved, besides the
Alternatives, the Bullies, and the Controllers -- the Innocents.
--
Skip
Mendler, 18 Sept 2001]
"I don't know," he said. "But I will tell you what weapons will be used in World War Four -- sticks and stones."
Albert was uncharacteristically wrong.
Welcome to World War Four.
What happened to Number Three, you ask, the Big One that we grew up expecting to rain nuclear destruction at any moment? It's been and gone. It didn't live up to its advance apocalyptic billing, perhaps, but World War Three -- better known as the Cold War -- nonetheless involved armed conflict across the globe, on nearly every continent, with the loss of thousands of lives and billions of dollars from Nicaragua to Angola to Vietnam.
I would identify at least three factions in this war -- there are undoubtedly more. The first comprises those who would establish a single global regime, based on the present nation-state/multinational-corporation framework, enforced by economic and military actions. (I hesitate to use the tired phrase "world government." I suspect that many of them would as well.) George Bush typifies this group in my mind. This group sees itself as having the right, not to mention duty, to enforce its vision across the world, for the furtherance of its own social and economic ends. They seek a certain homogeneity and global monoculture as providing the best atmosphere for business. The motivations of its members differ -- some are genuinely concerned for the future of the species, while others are driven purely by ideas of personal gain. For the sake of a label, let's take a term from Huxley's _Brave New World_ and refer to this block as the "Controllers."
Then there are those who insist on maintaining their local power at the expense of their own citizens and of the planet. They would maintain the right to conduct their affairs as they see fit, without regard for the consequences for others of their actions. Into this group I lump unlikely allies: Somalian warlords and certain antienvironmentalist "property rights" advocates, Rush Limbaugh and the Chinese government, terrorists of all stripes, totalitarians and white supremacists. These folks refuse to accept the notion that there may be responsibilities connected to the rights that they claim for themselves; that there may be things more important than their own perceived self-interests; that they may have to take into account the needs and desires of others, and adhere to some sort of common standard of civilized behavior. These are "Bullies," pure and simple. They rail against the machinations of the Controllers, but only because their own little domains are threatened by the idea of an authority higher than themselves.
Third, I would identify those who are attempting to create new forms of governance and relationship based on mutuality and respect, simultaneously bringing power closer to the grassroots and maintaing awareness of their global responsibilities. While such folk might resist a multinational authority (whether political or corporate), they are neither insular nor expansionist, neither nationalist nor anarchist. They seek a paradoxical world where differences are simultaneously celebrated and irrelevant, unified yet diverse -- a world whose motto would be, not "E Pluribus Unum" ("One out of many"), but its complement: "Plures in Uno" ("Many, within one"). In some cases, they may seek first to pull away from a larger group and establish their own identity before reconnecting to the larger global picture on their own terms. They represent an alternative both to the patronizing sternness of the Controllers, and to the oppressiveness of the Bullies, so "Alternatives" is probably the best overall name to give this group. They irk the Bullies no end; for the most part, the Controllers have seen it fit to ignore them, but following the confrontations in Seattle and Davos, it has become clear that they are finding their own way to enter the fray.
The first true battle of this war was, of course, the Gulf War, when the United States led a multinational coalition against the perceived common threat of Iraq. Subsequent battles between Controllers and Bullies, however, in places like Somalia and Bosnia have not gone so well for the global enforcers. Bully governments continue to refuse to listen to the pleas of their fellows, and pursue disasterous courses. Localized movements for self-determination of all sorts are cropping up across the globe, from the Quebecois in Canada to the Zapatistas in Mexico, from Chechens to Tamils to Shiites, from Timor to Tibet to the inner cities of the United States.
What does this have to do with cyberspace? Simple: this is one of the battlegrounds.
On mailing lists and newsgroups particularly, you can see the effects. Flame wars and spam attacks have disrupted many of these groups, with varying degrees of severity. The Net's self-regulatory nature makes enforcement of standards of conduct difficult if not impossible -- and enforcement by an outside authority is not what we desire in any case. The challenge, then, for the inhabitants of cyberspace is to determine for themselves the best ways of preserving and defending those aspects of Net culture that provide their hope for the future.
This text under construction... latest update 18 September
2001, post-Attack... your
comments welcomed...
smendler@well.com