Download Entering a "New Epoch", again?

ENTERING A “NEW EPOCH”, AGAIN?
Critique on Paul Virilio “Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm” by Yuliyana
Goranova
Paul Virilio is a French cultural theorist called “archeologist of the future”. He is
famous for his phrase: “the logic of ever increasing speed lies at the heart of the
organization and the transformation of the contemporary world” (1997: 9). Virolio is an
alumnus of the Sorbonne together with Merloau-Ponty under the supervision of Deleuze,
which influenced his philosophical attitudes formation. Virilio’s humanitarian
background and engagement with social problems (as an active participant in different
associations concerned with the housing of the homeless in Paris) successfully combine
with the influence of the ideas of war, strategy and spatial planning over him.
In his works Virilio challenges also the accepted modern and postmodern theories
of war, architecture, politics and especially techno culture. He has many writings
concerning the problems of new technology as “War and Cinema: the Logistic of
Perception” (1989), “Open Sky” (1997), “The Information Bomb” (2000) and others.
The article “Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!” (2001) is originally
published in Le monde Diplomatique – one of the periodicals in which he is a member of
the editorial body, which gives the author the privilege to present his ideas in one of the
most authoritative humanitarian journals.
The structure of the text is organized in three parts. Each of them presents a
certain side of the problem which Verilio calls “cyberspace alarm” (2001: 1). In the first
one he depicts the main features of the “twin phenomena of immediacy and
instantaneity” (Virilio 2001: 1) as a serious problem for the contemporary world. The
author suggests that the dominance of “real time” over “real space” and “geosphere …
ushers a new epoch” (Virilio 2001: 1). However, a clear definition what exactly is behind
the rather flexible terms “real time”, “real sphere” and “geosphere” is missing. Virilio
assumes that the crossing of the light barrier by humanity is a historical event, which
changes the relations of the human being towards the world and it is a matter of
obligation for every polity to explain this to its citizenry. But would somebody disagree
that the first space trip as well as the first supersonic aircraft had the same effect?
Further Virilio stands for the idea that the (audio-visual) perspective of real space
is being replaced by the (contact) “tactile perspective” (2001: 2) of cyberspace. However,
it’s not clear what exactly makes the difference between the two types – I would say that
hearing and seeing someone at a distance is also contact perspective as soon as it brings
me the feeling that I am in touch with someone as if he is right next to me, though
standing in the other half of the world while communicating with me audio-visually.
In the second part of the text the author draws our attention to another
phenomenon, following the first ones – “the fundamental loss of orientation” due to “the
duplication of the sensational reality… into virtuality” (Virilio 2001: 2). However, Virilio
again gives weak argumentation of his thesis that this is an existing threat – there are no
clear explanations about the real dimension of the danger – he just claims that
“duplicating the sensational reality” is something we should be terrified of.
This change of the perception the author believes is a shock for contemporary
people. Virilio attempts to persuade the reader that as there is no technological progress
without negative sides, this rule is binding for the information superhighways too. He
considers this claim as a legitimate proof for his thesis and thus makes hasty
generalizations based on what happened in the past more than thinking about what is
unpredictable from a cotemporary point of view. The change of perspective, claims he, is
the negative aspect of the information highways – a crisis which even may be seen as a
threat for the “political parties democracy” that soon may be replaced by the “opinion
democracy" and a new type of tyranny coming together with the global time (Virilio
2001: 2).
The other major menace is the “danger of disinformation” (Virilio 2001: 3),
which the author claims is following every information. However, this is also a point
which does not meet any argumentation but again remains on the level of something the
reader is supposed to believe is axiomatic. Then I would ask: Would Virilio agree that his
text, which is a form of information, is supposed to be seen also as containing some
disinformation? Another example of such groundlessness is the claim that when
obtaining something one always loses something (Virilio 2001: 3), which I would call
Post hoc logical fallacy.
Virilio prophesies the appearance of a form of counter movement against the
“information bomb” that will fight the possible damage from “the great accident of
future” (2001: 3), which very soon will be caused by the unlimited information. The
author believes that this will be a “never-seen-before” accident, “the accident of
accidents” (Virilio 2001: 3) resulting mainly from the absolute speed of electronic data.
Again, however, I can not see any argumentations or any proofs based on his experience
that enforces the logical necessity of something so dangerous to happen.
Finally Virilio makes another prophesy proceeding from the “narco-capitalism of
the wired world” (Virilio 2001: 4) threat - assumptions about the effect of the developing
virtual technology under the power of multinational corporations. He claims that
dangerous “computer-communication narco-economy capitalism” (Virilio 2001: 4) is in
progress. Finally Virilio concludes that democracy will be safe only if we fight the
“cybercult” and the multinational corporation aspiration to dominate the information
superhighways. It is not clear, however, on behalf of whom Verilio speaks. Who are
“we”, and following his logic, if there is “we”, shouldn’t there also be “they”?
Despite some weak points, “Speed and Information: Cyberspace Alarm!” raises
really interesting questions about the necessity of taking the responsibility over the way
different representatives of humanity exploit the new information superhighways as well
as what threatens democracy as we know and value it in case we lose the points of
support we have inherited. However, it leaves some open questioning like, for example,
what stands behind Verilio’s understanding of democracy? Why does he reject the
democracy alternatives that might replace it? And what is more important, what concrete
solutions does he suggest?
To the Beginning