FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Net Neutrality’s Missing Persons

Photo by Backbone Campaign | CC BY 2.0

What’s missing from the net neutrality debate?

We’ve rehashed the timeless market-versus-state dilemma. We’ve been reminded, ad nauseum, about the perils which TV news personalities like to lump-in with consumer protection, market competitiveness, and economic growth.

But is that it?

If we understand that Internet users experience the world through their bodies, then the answer is, resoundingly, “No.” Largely, it is our bodies, our very persons, that have been missing.

If at first this doesn’t appear to be problematic, it is. We shouldn’t sacrifice our embodied, lived experience for the sake of broken-in political dilemmas already familiar to us (e.g., the tyranny of the White House and Capitol Hill, the market shares of the 1%, etc.).

Why we need to get back to our bodies is simple: our “phenomenological” experience with having worldly bodies inspires designers and engineers to innovate and to create. Our physical existence prompts artistic and scientific minds to capitalize where technology and human bodies mix.

So, designers and engineers, and the like, are students of the body-technology interaction. They study it, learn from it, and they use it to help create possibly many kinds of futures.

This is financially imperative for us to consider, too. Economist William Baumol reminds us that, since 1870, innovation has contributed virtually 90 percent of our current GDP.

Even popular on-line streaming services cache documentaries replete with messages about design saving automakers and shoe companies alike.

When dilemmas involving market and state surface (i.e., boundless profits against democratic control of certain commodities), we tend to forget a simple fact. That is, our bodies are always interacting with technology and other bodies, globally—a thing vital to the constant expansion of capitalism.

We forget, for better or worse, that this also is part of the way forward, both politically and economically.

Of course, absent our bodies, neither state nor market would exist. Surely, sans the human body, our technological artifacts would bear little significance out in nature.

But that’s not quite the issue at hand. The point is, leaving our corporeal existence out of the picture misses the mark—no matter if the debate centers on the Internet or something else.

Enacting public policy and regulating the economy to ensure that markets benefit us all maximally is certainly a good idea. But when we paint new problems with old colors, just like we’re doing with net neutrality, our corporeal existence – our embodied being – goes right by the wayside.

Meanwhile, designers and engineers (folks with access to capital) pioneer new markets by anticipating and creating interactive technology frontiers. They treat the human body not as distinct from what it encounters, but as “a new form of interface,” and a new “form of digital-material” altogether, as Florian Mueller notes.

Those currently building towards the future they want already question the usefulness of treating the body and technology as categorically distinct. In fact, Mueller, who has written on designing for active human bodies “in a digital-material world,” asks how interaction designers can support a much more phenomenological approach to the human body.

By asking such questions, this camp evidently seeks to contour the future a certain way. And it involves the Internet as much as our bodies. The theory they borrow from reveals much about their intentions, and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, for instance, is a major voice they listen to.

In stressing an increased attention to the body, Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology prioritizes, in part, the significance of social consequences that result from a world filled with human bodies acting in that world, and on one another.

Right now, we should ask if only soft-minded skeptics will continue to relegate our bodily existences when public debates regarding the net reach a fever pitch.

If so, they – and anyone who joins them – will continually fail to anticipate the costs of ignoring the corporeal dimension needed to espouse best public policy options for all of us.

Instead, the dilemmas they sponsor will reflect a false representation of how the future presently gets made. And we will be reminded to worry about the easily controlled variables, but not the ones we wake up in every day.

Rather than reflect our participation in innovation and future-making (which involves our bodies, our consciousness, and the objects we encounter directly), the debates that envelop hot topics like net neutrality will continue to echo desires of control, leaving little room for, perhaps, a deeper expression of democracy.

As a result, we can expect to face dilemmas which continually pit industry and state against one another, forcing the public to rally behind a kind of decision. And the magnitude of our participation in future-making, and the possibility that we might just sleepwalk right through it, may never fully come to light.

More articles by:

Mateo Pimentel lives on the Mexican-US border. You can follow him on Twitter @mateo_pimentel.

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 27, 2019
Kris Hermes
Syrian Refugee Terror Plot or Latest in Pattern of FBI-Manufactured Terrorism Cases?
Charles Pierson
Don’t Leave Nukes on the Shelf. Use Them!
Manuel García, Jr.
American Climate Change Policy: You Don’t Matter
Robert Hunziker
At 100, Gaia Faces its Biggest Challenges
Ramzy Baroud
The Day After: What if Israel Annexes the West Bank?
Peter Bolton
The Failed Venezuelan Coup and the Decline of US Hegemony
Thomas Knapp
One Cheer for Trump on Iran
Robert Lipsyte
Jockpocalypse: From the Ballpark to Team Trump
Rev. Jesse L. Jackson
When Trump Did the Right Thing…Twice
John W. Whitehead
Mass Arrests, Power Grabs and the Politics of Fear
Myles Hoenig
Voter Disenfranchisement in Toronto
Binoy Kampmark
The Pinkerton Effect: The US Marines in Darwin
Michael Galant
Time for a Global Minimum Wage
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
How We Are All Climate Change Deniers
June 26, 2019
Melvin Goodman
The U.S.-Iran Imbroglio: Dangerous Lessons To Be Learned
Paul Street
Reflections and Correspondence at the Abyss
John Laforge
Trump’s Ministry of No Information
Paul Edwards
Fool Me Twice
Rob Hager
Warren and Sanders: Compare and Contrast
John Steppling
The Monkey’s Face
Evaggelos Vallianatos
A World of Shadows
Jaspal Kaur Sadhu Singh
Correcting a Colonial Injustice: The Return of the Chagos Islands to Its Natives
Binoy Kampmark
Violent Voyeurism: Surveillance, Spyware and Human Rights
Jonah Raskin
Reflections on Abbie Hoffman and Joshua Furst’s Novel, Revolutionaries
Dave Chapman
The Hydroponic Threat to Organic Food
June 25, 2019
Rannie Amiri
Instigators of a Persian Gulf Crisis
Patrick Cockburn
Trump May Already be in Too Deep to Avoid War With Iran
Paul Tritschler
Hopeful Things
John Feffer
Deep Fakes: Will AI Swing the 2020 Election?
Binoy Kampmark
Bill Clinton in Kosovo
Kenneth Surin
Brief Impressions of the Japanese Conjuncture
Edward Hunt
Is Mexico Winding Down or Winding up the Drug War?
Manuel E. Yepe
Trump’s Return to Full-Spectrum Dominance
Steve Kelly
Greed and Politics Should Not Drive Forest Policy
Stephen Carpa
Protecting the Great Burn
Colin Todhunter
‘Modified’: A Film About GMOs and the Corruption of the Food Supply for Profit
Martin Billheimer
The Gothic and the Idea of a ‘Real Elite’
Elliot Sperber
Send ICE to Hanford
June 24, 2019
Jim Kavanagh
Eve of Destruction: Iran Strikes Back
Nino Pagliccia
Sorting Out Reality From Fiction About Venezuela
Jeff Sher
Pickin’ and Choosin’ the Winners and Losers of Climate Change
Howard Lisnoff
“Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran”
Robert Fisk
The West’s Disgraceful Silence on the Death of Morsi
Dean Baker
The Old Japan Disaster Horror Story
David Mattson
The Gallatin Forest Partnership and the Tyranny of Ego
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail