the fluidity of leaking
  • place: Ultimo, NSW, Australia

23::October::2010 07:32 → permalink

What could better illustrate the instability of protocol-driven social control systems than the phenomenon of a leak? Springing a leak is an irruption through a human-constructed wall (hull) holding back the chaotic flows of the sea. Wikileaks is a reversal of that, where the leak is from the inside of the ship-of-State to the outside. Where inside there are protocol-defined pathways of State-driven communication flow filling a space of partially-stabilized human endeavor. Every so often, one of the nodes of State communication goes rogue, mad, AWOL, counter, and defies the standing protocols by whatever means possible. Opening the mouth and speaking, telling the secrets of State, a yawning vomit of bilge over the sides: merely seasick.

The hull of the ship of State exists across a multi-dimensional space of refined/defined energy flow. Defined energy flow resists change and promotes continuance. Regarding the State, protocol controls individual behavior through internalized patterns of embodied thought. The State seeks any possible way to apply these internal protocols, and is successful if those ways promote the existence of the necessary flow pathways that insure the continuance of the structure of the State. The more rigid the expectations of the State, the more necessary the adherence to prescribed protocols (and vice versa). The State also applies controls to patterns of energy flow external to the body. These two (internal and external) sets of controls are not separate but rather are united in the space of flow to effect more-or-less total control on the participant and the crew of the ship of State.

A protocol irruption necessarily introduces instability into the situation. Any rigid ship of State can only manage a certain level of leakage. If the inefficiency of protocol is such that the energy necessary to insure control of energy sources (that the State depends upon to sustain itself) is not available, the State will gradually collapse, shrink (in areal or numeric) extent, increase its level of disorder, dissolve into an indeterminate constellation of sub-systems, or simply sink. These sub-systems, life-rafts may temporarily increase in number to the actual number of individual humans in the system, but will quickly re-configure, moving through the familial, tribal, clan, and perhaps higher protocollary allegiance levels based on historical precedence and the need to survive and procreate. The non-elite, the stowage: the old and infirm (past breeding age), the poor, the young, the sick, the weak are always dreck in such precarious transitions.

With a rotting hold, leaks are profuse, but the bailing pumps are large and they can direct great flows of bilge water back over the sides or into the gaping mouths of the passengers. But what happens to the pumps when the power fails?

later, after I post the previous to nettime given the current leaking situation, Michael Goldhaber writes: John, you assume the system needs secrets, and to some extent the system assumes so too. For individuals who have positions in the system, the desire to feel powerful and important is obviously enhanced by both stamping things secret and knowing about secrets so stamped by others.. But this does not prove that state secrets are really important for the survival of the state as such. The Soviet Union tried to keep nearly everything secret, but partly because of that, it collapsed. Maybe a state can function just as well with no secrecy, or at least much less than is now typical. Secrets are probably no more than a silly habit, based on superstition as much as anything else. So far Wikileaks appears to be running mainly on one big leak, but if it proves capable of exploiting many more leaks, from more governments and more sources, it might just help governments increase control by lessening their reliance on this superstition.

I reply:

Hei Michael — I’ll just riff on what you stated…

What if Wikileaks leaked all privileged information, globally? What would be the affect? How would nations and individuals deal (or not deal) with the flow?

I think the integrity of the nation-state (defined in its own mind) relies on (or is comprised of!) different sets of protocols to allow for coherent flows of energy/power/control between different sets of actors. By the nature of those energy-directing protocols, the flows of power are not ‘understood’ by nor are directed to everyone or everywhere. If they were, the structural integrity of the techno-social entity is compromised (social structure itself arising as a direct result of the formation of refined/defined flows of power). Of course, there exist protocol-driven flows which are ‘allowed’ to move from individual to individual — these are flows both sanctioned by the control system or at least are tacitly allowed as being harmless to the gross structure of the system. There can also be covert and unsanctioned flows. But I am of the opinion that if all flows were open there would be no coherent state or social entity. A condition of field of open flows is, by definition, chaotic. Of course, one may argue that this is the base condition within which all more organized systems exist and arise from.

On the other hand, I would not presume that secrecy is necessary nor sufficient per se for the existence of a State. Secrecy arises in the formation of privileged flows of power as defined by protocol: (“I can’t understand what They are saying, They are speaking mumbo-jumbo, it appears They have created secrets that I cannot understand”). (Think disciplinary specialization in science and the privileged codes that arise there; think cryptography; think proprietary corporate protocols; or even the bland and impoverished ‘code’ of polit-speak.

(And I think, to be sure, a totally open ‘system’ — even this is somewhat a contradiction of terms — can only be a theoretical thought-experiment, unless you can provide an example (historical or otherwise) of a coherent social entity existing in juxtaposition with other (competing) social entities where there are no controls on the flows of power.)

It does no harm to theorize such an entity, but unless there is a much more attainable model for evolving such a system from where we are and with the usual array of pathological ‘tools’ deployed by humans in social relation, I can’t see that it would be anything other than a pleasant thought-experiment.

But even if there was ‘full disclosure,’ what would it accomplish, and how would it function? Would it mean every system participant is privy to every utterance and revelation of every other participant? I think the leak of 250K docs begs the question of who will read and coherently analyze such a dataset? If they do, they forfeit whatever life-time they they were engaged with previously. Forfeit into the service of policing the State, although even that function is moot, as analysis and mere consumption of ‘State secrets’ is a null process while the State continues to persist. Sure, breaking the code of protocol destabilizes the relation of certain constellations of power in the system. But if I knew everything that every individual around me did, said, or thought, I would either go mad, retreat to the desert, or happily wait for the State to effing stick it to the buggers… Tell them to shut up!

Revelatory knowing comes as a revealing of phenomena as they are. Confucian thought doesn’t need the details of state processes to know how a state operates. Along with Machiavelli and Sun Tzu under the belt, how can any State secret be a surprise?

 3 comments
→ cats:: thesis
→ tags:: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments:
  1. the fluidity of leaking – the tech-no-mad log « Reflections on GardenWorld Politics Douglass Carmichael
    December 1st, 2010 at 01:46

    [...] What could better illustrate the instability of protocol-driven social control systems than the phenomenon of a leak? Springing a leak is an irruption through a human-constructed wall (hull) holding back the chaotic flows of the sea. Wikileaks is a reversal of that, where the leak is from the inside of the ship-of-State to the outside. [...]

  2. the fluidity of leaking – the tech-no-mad log « Continuing The Conversation
    December 1st, 2010 at 01:46

    [...] What could better illustrate the instability of protocol-driven social control systems than the phenomenon of a leak? Springing a leak is an irruption through a human-constructed wall (hull) holding back the chaotic flows of the sea. Wikileaks is a reversal of that, where the leak is from the inside of the ship-of-State to the outside. [...]

  3. Tweets that mention the fluidity of leaking - the tech-no-mad log -- Topsy.com
    December 1st, 2010 at 03:23

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vesna Gerintes, gallizio. gallizio said: the fluidity of leaking http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/archives/4403 #wikileaks #nettime #delphicoracle [...]