differently. As I elaborate in the next chapter, rather than enabling a “homogeneous empty time that buttresses notions of steady progress—networks produce a time”—a series of crises or that create bubbles in time. In these constantly updating “Now’s” bubbles, the new quickly ages and the old is constantly rediscovered as new. Hence network time is not conducive to imagining a collective entity traveling together through time, but to envisioning a series of individuals that (cor)respond in their own time to singular, yet connected, events. Imagined networks are both more and less than communities: they are glocal collectives that create seemingly direct, traceable trajectories between the local and the global, the historical and the psychical, the collective and the individual, as well as the technical and the social. These glocal collectives are based on YOUS value: a series of interconnecting and connected YOUS rather than a collective new media “we.” Again, relentlessly as Person of the YouTube.com, emphasize “You:” “You” Time Magazine’s is both singular and plural. In its plural mode, though, it still Year. “You,” crucially, addresses individuals as individuals. In this sense, networks are very different from communities, which create a new identity, a from what is held in common (even if, “we,” as Maurice Blanchot has argued, that which we hold in common is our own incommensurability and finitude). In a network, when a or mass simultaneous “we” access happens, the network crashes: from multiple simultaneous hits on a website to synchronous electricity demand, from popular fakesters to flashmobs, the communal (both technical and nontechnical) brings down networks. The is a temporary “We” network weapon.
differently. As I elaborate in the next chapter, rather than enabling a “homogeneous empty time”—a time that buttresses notions of steady progress—networks produce a series of crises or “Now’s” that create bubbles in time. In these constantly updating bubbles, the new quickly ages and the old is constantly rediscovered as new. Hence network time is not conducive to imagining a collective entity traveling together through time, but to envisioning a series of individuals that (cor)respond in their own time to singular, yet connected, events. Imagined networks are both more and less than communities: they are glocal collectives that create seemingly direct, traceable trajectories between the local and the global, the historical and the psychical, the collective and the individual, as well as the technical and the social. These glocal collectives are based on YOUS value: a series of interconnecting and connected YOUS rather than a collective “we.” Again, new media relentlessly emphasize “You:” YouTube.com, “You” as Time Magazine’s Person of the Year. “You,” crucially, is both singular and plural. In its plural mode, though, it still addresses individuals as individuals. In this sense, networks are very different from communities, which create a new identity, a “we,” from what is held in common (even if, as Maurice Blanchot has argued, that which we hold in common is our own incommensurability and finitude). In a network, when a “we” or mass simultaneous access happens, the network crashes: from multiple simultaneous hits on a website to synchronous electricity demand, from popular fakesters to flashmobs, the communal (both technical and nontechnical) brings down networks. The “We” is a temporary network weapon.
Wendy%20Chun%20-%20Chapter%201%20(DRAFT).docx