FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Net Neutrality’s Missing Persons

by

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.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail