How much chaos do we really want?
7 December 2010
As before, and as many others, I’m very conflicted about the current situation around Wikileaks and Assange.
It seems as if the main task in this discussion is really to filter down the complexity without making the mistake as many others by just siding with one side. It’s not a black-and-white situation where one side is right and the other is wrong.
The problem with complex issues is that we naturally try to package it into something that is much more accessible and easier to solve for us. As before, I’m inclined to invoke Luhmann who described trust as an effective mechanism to reduce complexity. Every time we are going to vote, we are entrusting a person to do right by us. Therefore, government is also an instrument of reducing complexity. We live in a very complex world which doesn’t allow an individual or a small group of people to be functional without a system that is actually taking care of all of the infrastructure.
The system is, of course, flawed. Main problem is, that the instrument that supposed to be in place to reduce complexity and make live manageable actually became to complex to grasp. Therefore, it’s not fulfilling its initial intent and undermining steadily our trust.
That is where Wikileaks comes in. It seems to be almost an extreme manifestation of our mistrust into the system. But: Assange is certainly not constructivist, he is not following a comprehensive system that tries to built something better, but instead just aims to destroy the now.
In a way, it’s the classic Faust situation. We’re Faust, who wants to know everything and Assange is Mephistopheles, who pretends to have the truth without caring for it in any way.
Either way, Assange is really good in pretending to reduce complexity by opening up government communiques. But just opening up those things isn’t a solution. It only brings more chaos to a system that is already too complex to be really comprehensible.
I’m certainly not against transparency, but I do question to the motivation behind what Wikileaks is currently doing. Do we really want more chaos and thus more complexity?
Wenn es der Wahrheit und Aufklärung dienlich ist – bitte mehr davon!
— Stefan · Dec 7, 04:50 PM · #
Uhhh noooo.
Please government, protect me from that complexity, I feel so insecure if I have to think for myself!
Just lie to me, to make me happy and I pledge not to look behind the scenes!
— Steve · Dec 7, 05:01 PM · #
I’d invoke the movement of enlightenment. Your argument regarding reduction of complexity certainly is compelling, but, by reductio ad absurdum, would make live in feudal times strongly preferable to live in democracy because of reduced complexity.
We, the public, have a right to know what our publicly elected officials are doing in our name. This all boils down to the ideal of statehood we have.
And in comes enlightenment, which proposes that citizenry has to know the facts to make up their own minds and strongly opposes “complexity reductions” which are put in place by the governing faction.
I am fully aware that the nature of the latest leaks pose a serious threat. American efforts on the diplomatic floor will turn out to be severely hindered by this. Diplomacy itself relies on a semblance of sensitivity. However, it is the public’s right to know what is being said and done in their name.
Last but not least, an “enemy of the state” inspired manhunt for free speech should be a concern to all of us, regardless of our judgement on the leaks.
— Martin · Dec 7, 05:03 PM · #
Martin, I never excused the manhunt for Assange in my blog post nor do I intend to.
While I do agree with you on the part of enlightenment, I don’t really think that those leaks brought us any actually. As Umberto Eco said, a lot of the content that was in those communiques was actually something that nobody of us would have classified as “confidential”. They have been empty secrets, but by bringing them into the light they did great damage to the Obama administration.
So, again, I don’t think that Assange and Wikileaks are actually trying to establish enlightenment. Instead, he is pursuing a very specific agenda and that is in my book not a contribution to society that I actually welcome.
And as for your rights: most people who are currently pointing toward their rights in this matter forget, that only US citizen have a certain right in this manner. After all, it’s “their” property.
— Igor · Dec 7, 05:13 PM · #
Just a short one. You stated, that “he is not following a comprehensive system that tries to built something better, but instead just aims to destroy the now.”
I do not see this point. He did write quite a lot in his early days, quite a lot on how he sees the world and what he would want it to look like.
yesterday there was quite a good journalistic piece in the online-edition of the german newspaper “sueddeutsche” (Link: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange-der-gegenverschwoerer-1.1031477).
There, the author did the work, dug into the internet-archive and searched for the thoughts of Assange.
One can think a lot of the Person Assange and the organisation wikileaks. And it is not my intention to go into this discussion here.
I just wanted to point, that there is a philosophy behind the deeds of Julian Assange.
You could like it, you could be against this philosophy. That is what a democracy is for – enabling people to speak their opinion.
I can understand you, referring to Luhmann, but I would rather refer to Foucault’s theories in his writings on power, knowledge, and discourse. It is inherent to power, to try to win more power. Power over speech and over the people. Power to define the discourse. That is, what happens today, when the US try to define the way, the important topics are discussed (For example try the cables on the Copenhagen Climate Round).
So yes there is a disruptive power in wikileaks. As there was a disruptive power in the printing press or in the internet.
But does this mean, that the disruptive force, these mediums brought into the world were bad?
— Sven · Dec 7, 06:50 PM · #
It’s a slippery slope to compare technology with what one organization / one man does. Technology by itself doesn’t do anything, it’s what we are doing with the technology.
And of course there is nothing wrong with disruption, I’m not at all against it. It is an helpful instrument of progress and I’m quite happy with what we have achieved through the Internet.
But: I’m uncertain about the purpose of what Assange is doing. There is, no doubt, a higher purpose behind the leaks and I’m fully in favor of publishing information about misdeeds committed by the government. After all, government should be held accountable for the acts it’s committing in our name, they’re all elected officials.
At the same time, I do see the need for certain processes to make government functional. It’s hard to differentiate between certain figures in the government who are trying to preserve power, as you are rightfully remarked by citing Foucault, and between those who are simply are trying to do the best possible work.
Diplomacy is certainly an area where I’m not an expert whatsoever, but I do need to point to Umberto Eco’s article on this (again): http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/414871-not-such-wicked-leaks
To come to an end: as with every disruptive act, I’m not in favor of glorying the disruptor, but more the one who is giving something better to the world. Assange is really good in disrupting the now, but does he deserve to be the person that presumably makes the world a bit better? I’m not sure, he has too much personal agenda in this.
— Igor · Dec 8, 06:02 PM · #