The Problem of Communication
(Note: Please forget the high flying-futuristic approach with which I ended this paper; that is the artist's mind and since I'm an artist I cannot just discriminate and keep it away from the more rational logical mind. )
In the first part of this paper I will go into an account of the main theories of communication of the 20th C. as described by J. D. Peters and J. B. Thompson. In the second part I will try to outline some of the possible consequences that the new forms of communications are placing on social relations, to that end I will ground my approach on Baudrillard’s notion of simulacra and Derrida’s concept of grammatisation. In the Epilog I will oiutline a future scenario where these operating ideas would produce a whole new conception of the human being in society.
The problem of communication was born during 19th C. industrial capitalism when “we defined ourselves in terms of our ability to communicate with one another” (Peters 1). The division of labor brought about by the industrial revolution and the conditions of living thus created gave rise to the question of communication. Communication came to the 20th Century as one of that century characteristic concepts.
Notions of ideals forms of communication contrasted with the problem of miss-communication. The century brought on one hand the Utopian model of an open, transparent and clear communion of minds and souls, as symbolized by the power of telepathy. While on the other hand the phantom of a failed communication and extreme solipsism loomed. This dualistic model have been derived from physical notions of communication as transmission of signals and symbols. The telegraph and the radio and the advent of electricity erased physical boundaries and distances conjuring up the magic of ethereal communication; interpersonal relations were reduced unto the problem of getting attuned or navigating in the right wavelength.
Several theories of communication dominated the discussion on the subject.
Thompson draws his ideas from social and cultural theory and he mentions three traditions of thought that are relevant to his concerns. The first one is the critical social theory of the Frankfurt school, from which he discard most of the work of its earlier authors but manage to salvage part of Haberma’s account of the public sphere by signaling his treatment of the “development of media as an integral part of the formation of modern societies” (Thompson 7). The exchange model of communication proclaimed by J. D. Peters and its notion of communication as central to democracy resonates in Habermas’ account of the public sphere and participation in power decision making.
Another tradition of thought from which Thompson derive his thinking is the tradition of media theorists like Marshall McLuhan and Harold Innis, who wrote about the relation between media of communication and the spatial and temporal organization of power. Central to Hinnis thought is“his theory of the bias of communication, (namely) that different media favored different ways of political power” (Thompson 7). Although Hinnis’ ideas were seen as too crude in their time one cannot avoid to find a reflection of them in the practice of major news outlets like the Daily News and the New York Post, or CNN and Foxnews.
A third tradition that Thompson uses for his analysis is that of hermeneutics. Authors like Gadamer, Ricoeur and also Clifford Geertz “highlight the facts that reception of symbolic forms –including media products- always involve a contextualized and creative process of interpretation” (Thompsom 8). Another feature of Thompson work is his account of globalization processes and the emergence of global communication networks that take the problems of interaction and exercise of control at un-precedent spatial level while shortening communicative temporal distances.
Other communication researchers, like Lipmann, Bernays and Laswell see communication as dispersion of symbols in order to manage mass opinion. Industrialization, urbanization, societal rationalization, psychological research and new mechanisms of communication set the conditions for what Laswell called the “chains of silver” of the manufacture of consent. Lippman and Luckacs they both see communication as manipulation of mass opinion by an elite. In the case of Lippmann the elite is composed of social-scientific experts. For Luckacs those elites are intellectual party leaders to whom the art of party organization as an intellectual issue –not just technical- for the revolution, is the main concern; the building of class- consciousness by the proletariat demands the need for party slogans and rallying cries.
C. K. Odgen and L. A. Richards focus on the elimination of semantic dissonance as opening a path to more rational relations. In the other hand, while the 20th C. vanguards focus on the encasing of the self -solipsism- Heidegger focused on the disclosure of the self. Finally for Dewey language is the pragmatic tool that binds people in action building a community.
For Horkheimer and Adorno capitalism and its cultural products produce standardization. The sameness of culture is a consequence of the total power of capital. The culture industry is characterized by the dominance of mass culture by monopolies. Standardized forms are originally derived from the need of the consumers. Reproduction process result in standard products that satisfy needs at countless locations. The law of profit dictates that mass culture becomes a culture of standardized products and mass production. The effects are not attributable not to internal laws of technology itself but to the function of technology within the economy. Capital is the basis for technology gaining power over society (Adorno 95.)
Whereas for Walter Benjamin technology is ambivalent, if not outright positive and brings new ways of seeing things that transcend the commercial side of cultural production. There is an element of democratization in reproduction process and mass production for Benjamin, contrasting with Adorno’s account of mass media as vertical, oppressive and at the service of mass domination. Control and subjection to authority relations conveyed by the original is destroyed in the reproduction process, thus conditions of oppression are enlivened in technological reproducibility. Technology is not neutral and has certain imminent effects that produce certain experiences in itself. The censorial apparatus experience a cyborg-like metamorphosis even down to the tactile. Thus Benjamin’s account of reproduction process reverberate in the tradition of communication as process and partaking, the “sacred ceremony which draws persons together in fellowship and commonality (Carey 412).
In 1981, nine long years before the World Wide Web was released, Jean Baudrillard published "Simulacra and Simulation." Baudrillard postulates a world in which reference is eliminated, only signs and symbols and the relations among them constituted reality. Men live in this world of images and texts. “No more mirror of being and appearances, of the real and its concept” (Baudrillard, 2.) The territory does not precede the map anymore, it is the map that precedes the territory --the precession of simulacra-- that engenders the territory. The generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. For Baudrillard “the real is produced by miniaturized cells, matrices, memory banks and models of control. It doesn’t need to be rational because it doesn’t measure itself against an ideal or negative instance. It is not longer anything but operational. It is no longer the real because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is the hyperreal produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in an hyperspace without atmosphere” (Baudrillard 1-2.).Thus Baudrillard, using the concept of simulacra negates the notion of reality as it was commonly understood. Influenced by Marshall McLuhan, Baudrillard focused in the question of how the forms of communication that a society employs determine the nature of social relations.
II
Now, using these concepts and others (that I will add), I would like to extract some possible consequences that their projection could have have in our present and future undertakings of various kind.
In a world that cannot measure itself “against an ideal or negative instance” (Baudrillard 2) there are no notions of right and wrong, false of truth, good or bad. Following the erasure of ethical categories we experience dissolution of criteria for value judgments. Beautiful is undistinguishable from ugly. Talent is equaled to mediocrity. The only valid category is pleasure –or the lack of.
Today millions of people work on the Internet while having pleasure, “free labor is the moment where this knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into productive activities that are pleasurable embraced and at the same time shamefully exploited (Terranova 37). “Amusement itself becomes an ideal” (Horkheimer & Adorno115.) A concern of the State would be to keep people having pleasure while at the same time laboring. Loss of pleasure would mean loss of power by the State. Pleasure as a paradigm implies a utilitarian philosophy underlying every human activity. As Jeremy Bentham had stated it, the pleasure of the major possible number of individuals becomes the goal of the State (Bentham 1-4.) If the State cannot find ways for people to profit from pleasure, following the Utilitarian principle, Totalitarianism could become the next form of government in the West. The problems that have given rise to the Occupy Wall Street Movement are related to inequality. This inequality has arisen by virtue of few individuals profiting and making humongous fortunes out of the smiles of hundreds of million of people working while having pleasure. Pleasure while working is not anymore a concern in the post-industrial countries of the West, but redistribution of wealth.
The value of an individual in society is measured against its capacity to consume. Commodities are expressive of social status. “Since the producers do not come into contact with each-other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labor does not show itself except in the act of exchange”(Marx, 61). We had come a long way from a society of fetishism of the producer to a society of fetishism of the consumer. But the fetishism of commodities is also being substituted by the fetishism of connection.
We live to contemplate the spectacle of others passing by at the other side of the window, society has displaced what is lived to what is represented. Life “present itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles” (Debord 1); their images conveying the reality of social relations, reality substituted by hyper-reality, “entertainment fostering the resignation which seeks to forget itself in entertainment”(H. & Adorno 113.)
Paper used to be the place where thoughts were displayed, distributed, reorganized. The mind was seen, redesigned, and through paper we were are able to expand our concepts of reality and worldviews, human nature as a result of being able to write our mind and communicate it, “paper (was) the support not only for marks but for a complex “operation” –spatial and temporal” (J. Derrida 42.)The computer and the www brings a new kind of support to our thinking and communicating practices, accordingly social relations and what it means to be human is changing. A grammatic of the mind in the virtual world would make possible the deconstruction and reconstruction of identities.
A re-grammatization of social relations is already occurring, a redesign of social relations based on the new forms of communication that the www brings about. The Internet is erasing psychological distances. Virtual nations are substituting physical nations; their members constituted not so much around common experiences but around common interests, likenesses and dis-likenesses. As long as there is a universal language useful to communicate, individuals from different backgrounds join different communities. Centers of interest and pleasure are the new capitals of the world. The new nation is “an imagined political community- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”(Anderson 15.)
Images, pictures, memories, songs, poems, connect us with the set of common experiences that constitutes the imagined nation.
Economic relations based on virtuality imply that “Knowledge workers need open organizational structures to produce, because the production of knowledge is rooted in collaboration” (Terranova 37).
Hegemonic powers would have as their task to keep communities collaborating over production plans, feeling enjoyment in their labor.
From a Hegelian perspective, cognition will take new forms, restructured and liberated from the limitations of the body and “eliminating from the representation of the Absolute whatever is a distortion and therefore keep only the truth about it” (Hegel, Introduction) This knowledge of the Soul in its travel to knowledge of the Absolute would imply the death of the individual and the body., who will live only in the virtual reality of the world wide web.
Epilog:
Microsoft researcher converts his brain into 'e-memory'
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Microsoft researcher Gordon Bell argues we will soon have searchable memories
Bell details his ideas in a new co-authored book called "Total Recall"
Bell has been recording almost every detail of his life digitally for a decade
updated 8:22 a.m. EDT, Fri September 25, 2009
(CNN) -- For the past decade, Microsoft researcher Gordon Bell has been moving the data from his brain onto computers -- where he knows it will be safe.
To the humans 50 years from now this would be the primitive way of seeking immortality. There would be new, faster ways of uploading all your human experiences contained in your memories into a computer. That way we will transcend the life spam of our physical body. Since perceptions, communication, knowledge, social interaction, even work will exist in the Net, in individual centers of sensitivities, memories, knowledge, attitudes, behavior, psychological patterns of actions and interactions, the meaning of life and of what is to be an individual will be changed.
You would not have to be necessarily tied to a biological body to be alive. The body is nothing without a brain but the mind is still the mind even if it doesn’t have a body; but a support - the computer and the www. Not that I’m proclaiming here the prominence of the idea over the body, but that could be the past that humanity could take or has already taken, the latest of these “configurations” of progression being that of the advent of post-industrialization and technology in the www.
Knowledge workers would be so absorbed in experiencing their virtual environment that their only attachment to the physical world would be an intravenous nourishing fluid connection. To keep this knowledge workers barely alive and attached to their virtual world will be the priority of the State, therefore a part of the money produced will have to revert back in at least the minimum to keep knowledge workers alive.
Bibliography:
In the first part of this paper I will go into an account of the main theories of communication of the 20th C. as described by J. D. Peters and J. B. Thompson. In the second part I will try to outline some of the possible consequences that the new forms of communications are placing on social relations, to that end I will ground my approach on Baudrillard’s notion of simulacra and Derrida’s concept of grammatisation. In the Epilog I will oiutline a future scenario where these operating ideas would produce a whole new conception of the human being in society.
The problem of communication was born during 19th C. industrial capitalism when “we defined ourselves in terms of our ability to communicate with one another” (Peters 1). The division of labor brought about by the industrial revolution and the conditions of living thus created gave rise to the question of communication. Communication came to the 20th Century as one of that century characteristic concepts.
Notions of ideals forms of communication contrasted with the problem of miss-communication. The century brought on one hand the Utopian model of an open, transparent and clear communion of minds and souls, as symbolized by the power of telepathy. While on the other hand the phantom of a failed communication and extreme solipsism loomed. This dualistic model have been derived from physical notions of communication as transmission of signals and symbols. The telegraph and the radio and the advent of electricity erased physical boundaries and distances conjuring up the magic of ethereal communication; interpersonal relations were reduced unto the problem of getting attuned or navigating in the right wavelength.
Several theories of communication dominated the discussion on the subject.
- “One branch of meaning … has to do with imparting, quite apart from any notion of a dialogic or interactive process (Peters 7). A notion of partaking that is central to the European school of communication theory where “communication is viewed as a process through which a shared culture is created, modified and transformed” (Carey 412).
- Another theoretical conceptual apparatus conceives of communication as “transfer or transmission…the root… of the notion of communication as the transfer of psychical entities such as ideas, thoughts or meanings” (Peters 8). This notion of communication as transmission is linked to the obsession with control and mass communication that dominates American schools of thought “grounded in a transmission or transportation view of communication” (Carey 412) Both of them having in common “expenditure."
- A third notion is conceived around the dialogic form stated for the first time by Plato in the “Phaedrus”. For Plato the individual is the source o communication, words flow from one consciousness to another in an erotic exchange reminiscent of monogamous love. In Plato communication is defined in relation to its opposites, rhetoric, persuasion, manipulation and writing; therefore the importance that the spoken word --and the dialogic form-- take as an instrument of truth. “Communication in this sense is supposed to involve interchange, mutuality and some kind of reciprocity” (Peters 8), This exchange can occur at different levels, from a superficial level that involves only the awareness by the parts that the message has arrived, to open and frank talk between co-workers or intimates, and finally the communion of minds and souls, fusion of consciousness that can even dispense with talk.
Thompson draws his ideas from social and cultural theory and he mentions three traditions of thought that are relevant to his concerns. The first one is the critical social theory of the Frankfurt school, from which he discard most of the work of its earlier authors but manage to salvage part of Haberma’s account of the public sphere by signaling his treatment of the “development of media as an integral part of the formation of modern societies” (Thompson 7). The exchange model of communication proclaimed by J. D. Peters and its notion of communication as central to democracy resonates in Habermas’ account of the public sphere and participation in power decision making.
Another tradition of thought from which Thompson derive his thinking is the tradition of media theorists like Marshall McLuhan and Harold Innis, who wrote about the relation between media of communication and the spatial and temporal organization of power. Central to Hinnis thought is“his theory of the bias of communication, (namely) that different media favored different ways of political power” (Thompson 7). Although Hinnis’ ideas were seen as too crude in their time one cannot avoid to find a reflection of them in the practice of major news outlets like the Daily News and the New York Post, or CNN and Foxnews.
A third tradition that Thompson uses for his analysis is that of hermeneutics. Authors like Gadamer, Ricoeur and also Clifford Geertz “highlight the facts that reception of symbolic forms –including media products- always involve a contextualized and creative process of interpretation” (Thompsom 8). Another feature of Thompson work is his account of globalization processes and the emergence of global communication networks that take the problems of interaction and exercise of control at un-precedent spatial level while shortening communicative temporal distances.
Other communication researchers, like Lipmann, Bernays and Laswell see communication as dispersion of symbols in order to manage mass opinion. Industrialization, urbanization, societal rationalization, psychological research and new mechanisms of communication set the conditions for what Laswell called the “chains of silver” of the manufacture of consent. Lippman and Luckacs they both see communication as manipulation of mass opinion by an elite. In the case of Lippmann the elite is composed of social-scientific experts. For Luckacs those elites are intellectual party leaders to whom the art of party organization as an intellectual issue –not just technical- for the revolution, is the main concern; the building of class- consciousness by the proletariat demands the need for party slogans and rallying cries.
C. K. Odgen and L. A. Richards focus on the elimination of semantic dissonance as opening a path to more rational relations. In the other hand, while the 20th C. vanguards focus on the encasing of the self -solipsism- Heidegger focused on the disclosure of the self. Finally for Dewey language is the pragmatic tool that binds people in action building a community.
For Horkheimer and Adorno capitalism and its cultural products produce standardization. The sameness of culture is a consequence of the total power of capital. The culture industry is characterized by the dominance of mass culture by monopolies. Standardized forms are originally derived from the need of the consumers. Reproduction process result in standard products that satisfy needs at countless locations. The law of profit dictates that mass culture becomes a culture of standardized products and mass production. The effects are not attributable not to internal laws of technology itself but to the function of technology within the economy. Capital is the basis for technology gaining power over society (Adorno 95.)
Whereas for Walter Benjamin technology is ambivalent, if not outright positive and brings new ways of seeing things that transcend the commercial side of cultural production. There is an element of democratization in reproduction process and mass production for Benjamin, contrasting with Adorno’s account of mass media as vertical, oppressive and at the service of mass domination. Control and subjection to authority relations conveyed by the original is destroyed in the reproduction process, thus conditions of oppression are enlivened in technological reproducibility. Technology is not neutral and has certain imminent effects that produce certain experiences in itself. The censorial apparatus experience a cyborg-like metamorphosis even down to the tactile. Thus Benjamin’s account of reproduction process reverberate in the tradition of communication as process and partaking, the “sacred ceremony which draws persons together in fellowship and commonality (Carey 412).
In 1981, nine long years before the World Wide Web was released, Jean Baudrillard published "Simulacra and Simulation." Baudrillard postulates a world in which reference is eliminated, only signs and symbols and the relations among them constituted reality. Men live in this world of images and texts. “No more mirror of being and appearances, of the real and its concept” (Baudrillard, 2.) The territory does not precede the map anymore, it is the map that precedes the territory --the precession of simulacra-- that engenders the territory. The generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal. For Baudrillard “the real is produced by miniaturized cells, matrices, memory banks and models of control. It doesn’t need to be rational because it doesn’t measure itself against an ideal or negative instance. It is not longer anything but operational. It is no longer the real because no imaginary envelops it anymore. It is the hyperreal produced from a radiating synthesis of combinatory models in an hyperspace without atmosphere” (Baudrillard 1-2.).Thus Baudrillard, using the concept of simulacra negates the notion of reality as it was commonly understood. Influenced by Marshall McLuhan, Baudrillard focused in the question of how the forms of communication that a society employs determine the nature of social relations.
II
Now, using these concepts and others (that I will add), I would like to extract some possible consequences that their projection could have have in our present and future undertakings of various kind.
In a world that cannot measure itself “against an ideal or negative instance” (Baudrillard 2) there are no notions of right and wrong, false of truth, good or bad. Following the erasure of ethical categories we experience dissolution of criteria for value judgments. Beautiful is undistinguishable from ugly. Talent is equaled to mediocrity. The only valid category is pleasure –or the lack of.
Today millions of people work on the Internet while having pleasure, “free labor is the moment where this knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into productive activities that are pleasurable embraced and at the same time shamefully exploited (Terranova 37). “Amusement itself becomes an ideal” (Horkheimer & Adorno115.) A concern of the State would be to keep people having pleasure while at the same time laboring. Loss of pleasure would mean loss of power by the State. Pleasure as a paradigm implies a utilitarian philosophy underlying every human activity. As Jeremy Bentham had stated it, the pleasure of the major possible number of individuals becomes the goal of the State (Bentham 1-4.) If the State cannot find ways for people to profit from pleasure, following the Utilitarian principle, Totalitarianism could become the next form of government in the West. The problems that have given rise to the Occupy Wall Street Movement are related to inequality. This inequality has arisen by virtue of few individuals profiting and making humongous fortunes out of the smiles of hundreds of million of people working while having pleasure. Pleasure while working is not anymore a concern in the post-industrial countries of the West, but redistribution of wealth.
The value of an individual in society is measured against its capacity to consume. Commodities are expressive of social status. “Since the producers do not come into contact with each-other until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labor does not show itself except in the act of exchange”(Marx, 61). We had come a long way from a society of fetishism of the producer to a society of fetishism of the consumer. But the fetishism of commodities is also being substituted by the fetishism of connection.
We live to contemplate the spectacle of others passing by at the other side of the window, society has displaced what is lived to what is represented. Life “present itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles” (Debord 1); their images conveying the reality of social relations, reality substituted by hyper-reality, “entertainment fostering the resignation which seeks to forget itself in entertainment”(H. & Adorno 113.)
Paper used to be the place where thoughts were displayed, distributed, reorganized. The mind was seen, redesigned, and through paper we were are able to expand our concepts of reality and worldviews, human nature as a result of being able to write our mind and communicate it, “paper (was) the support not only for marks but for a complex “operation” –spatial and temporal” (J. Derrida 42.)The computer and the www brings a new kind of support to our thinking and communicating practices, accordingly social relations and what it means to be human is changing. A grammatic of the mind in the virtual world would make possible the deconstruction and reconstruction of identities.
A re-grammatization of social relations is already occurring, a redesign of social relations based on the new forms of communication that the www brings about. The Internet is erasing psychological distances. Virtual nations are substituting physical nations; their members constituted not so much around common experiences but around common interests, likenesses and dis-likenesses. As long as there is a universal language useful to communicate, individuals from different backgrounds join different communities. Centers of interest and pleasure are the new capitals of the world. The new nation is “an imagined political community- and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”(Anderson 15.)
Images, pictures, memories, songs, poems, connect us with the set of common experiences that constitutes the imagined nation.
Economic relations based on virtuality imply that “Knowledge workers need open organizational structures to produce, because the production of knowledge is rooted in collaboration” (Terranova 37).
Hegemonic powers would have as their task to keep communities collaborating over production plans, feeling enjoyment in their labor.
From a Hegelian perspective, cognition will take new forms, restructured and liberated from the limitations of the body and “eliminating from the representation of the Absolute whatever is a distortion and therefore keep only the truth about it” (Hegel, Introduction) This knowledge of the Soul in its travel to knowledge of the Absolute would imply the death of the individual and the body., who will live only in the virtual reality of the world wide web.
Epilog:
Microsoft researcher converts his brain into 'e-memory'
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Microsoft researcher Gordon Bell argues we will soon have searchable memories
Bell details his ideas in a new co-authored book called "Total Recall"
Bell has been recording almost every detail of his life digitally for a decade
updated 8:22 a.m. EDT, Fri September 25, 2009
(CNN) -- For the past decade, Microsoft researcher Gordon Bell has been moving the data from his brain onto computers -- where he knows it will be safe.
To the humans 50 years from now this would be the primitive way of seeking immortality. There would be new, faster ways of uploading all your human experiences contained in your memories into a computer. That way we will transcend the life spam of our physical body. Since perceptions, communication, knowledge, social interaction, even work will exist in the Net, in individual centers of sensitivities, memories, knowledge, attitudes, behavior, psychological patterns of actions and interactions, the meaning of life and of what is to be an individual will be changed.
You would not have to be necessarily tied to a biological body to be alive. The body is nothing without a brain but the mind is still the mind even if it doesn’t have a body; but a support - the computer and the www. Not that I’m proclaiming here the prominence of the idea over the body, but that could be the past that humanity could take or has already taken, the latest of these “configurations” of progression being that of the advent of post-industrialization and technology in the www.
Knowledge workers would be so absorbed in experiencing their virtual environment that their only attachment to the physical world would be an intravenous nourishing fluid connection. To keep this knowledge workers barely alive and attached to their virtual world will be the priority of the State, therefore a part of the money produced will have to revert back in at least the minimum to keep knowledge workers alive.
Bibliography:
- John Durham Peters. Speaking into the Air. The University of Chicago Press. 2000.=
- James W. Carey. Mass Communication Research and Cultural Studies. An American View.
- John B. Thompson. The Media and Modernity. A Social Theory of the Media. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. 1995.
- Horkheimer and Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California. 2006.
- Walter Benjamin. Iluminations. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Schocken Books. New York. 1969.
- Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor. The University of Michigan Press. 1994.
- Jeremy Bentham. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Chapter 1. Of the Principle of Utility.
- Guy Debord. The Commodity as Spectacle. In Society of Spectacle. Detroit: Black & Red Books. 1977.
- Jacques Derrida. Paper Machine. Stanford Unuversity Press. Stanford, California. 2005.
- Ray Kurzweill. The Singularity is Near. Penguin group. 2005.
- Karl Marx. The Fetishism of Commodities. Excerpt from “Capital, Vol. I,” in Robert C. Tucker, ed., The Marx-Engels reader, ed ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 1978.
- Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities. Verso. 1983.
- Tiziana Terranova. Free Labor. Producing Culture for the Digital Economy. Duke University Press.2000.
- W.F. Hegel. Phenomenology of the Spirit. Oxford University Press.1977.
- CNN [online edition) updated 8:22 a.m. EDT, Fri September 25, 2009
posted by Renelio @ 3/31/2012 04:34:00 PM
0 Comments
