I must start off by saying that the chapter review sessions in class have really helped me get a better grasp on what Terranova is talking about. In fact, with the new insight that I have gained, I am now able to better apply what she is talking about to previous reading that was assigned. However, when I got to chapter 4 & 5, I had to re-read them a few times.
As I read [struggled] through chapter 4 I found it to be somewhat reminiscent to chapter 1. I felt that she focused a lot on theoretical foundations and did not provide any data to back the claims that are made, surrounding the extensive details about the evolution of biological computation and cellular automata. For example, when Terranova states that biological computing allows for the sidestepping of the organism she is basing this from the theory of someone else, without any material examples of this happening. If she mentions examples then they completely flew over my head.
As opposed to chapter 4, chapter 5 was a easier to comprehend. I was able to catch on to the relationship that Terranova was trying to bridge between communication and 'the masses' she refers to on pages 133/35. This reminded me of the social entropy that she spoke about in chapter 1, where she spoke about the correlation with the communication of information and entropy—unpredictability to its significance in the nineteenth century. The reason for this is because in chapter 5, Terranova speaks about the social entropy that communication and the mass has already begun in regards to the media and politics. From what I understood, Terranova is trying to say that the intensification of communication and the masses allows for the ease of manipulation. (pg. 136)
The connection between information and the mass (via entropy) is important--good catch. She could have made it clearer, I think. As I understand it, she thinks of the mass as this, well, massive dynamic (I think she could have used the term strange attractor here to help) that isn't well understand in terms of its composition (social parts) or in terms of meaning, but in terms of an affective energy focused/fascinated on spectacle/image. What isn't clear to me is how this discussion of the image fits with her account of information. It feels like there is a step missing. Would the answer involve more emphasis on unpredictability? Something else?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, good work persevering with a challenging text.