Tuesday, November 10, 2009
If "the simultaneity of actions has taken precedence over the succession of events," how do networks function in creating relationships, perhaps a sort of history, between these simultaneous events? If we consider History (which has, by its old definition, "disappeared") as having been passed down through time by historians (official or not) and various representations (books, films, etc.), who (or what) now takes up the task of disseminating the present across time/space? It would seem that anyone with internet access could, conceivably, step into this role at any time; perhaps we can imagine the networks themselves as the new "history books" (but of the present), allowing anyone with access to become an 'author.' History, as some might say, is (was?) written by the victors; so then what would it mean that almost anyone can create their own sort of "simultaneous history"? Because even if there are some forces that control large flows of information, accessibility to alternative networks and sources allows one to largely escape these forces for others that they are able to choose. Now, more than ever, we are able to control (at least in part) how our lives are mediated through growing numbers of alternatives. And if differences eventually lead to incompatibilities, what does this situation mean for History, or the Present, and are we experiencing ever wider disjunctures between people/networks/groups as a result of increased (and varied) mediation?