User:Farrah Shakeel/annotated-bibliography/ad-hoc

http://ralphborland.net/mesh/society_in_ad_hoc_mode.pdf

In his article, Society in ad-hoc mode: Decentralized, Self-Organising, Mobile, Medosch presents an interesting story, and gives some terminology to the pre-existing ways of societal working (grass-root or the upper layers of hierarchy) in times of crisis. It was interesting to read the essay in how his way of presenting one argument automatically generates criticism in the readers mind, and right when he (the reader) is about to jot that point down, Medosch is on his way to already counter-argue the criticism. Thereby, the essay in itself is written in and individualistic ad-hoc mode. Smart.

The essay revolves around Medosch talking about the relationship between social and technological progress. His techno-utopianism comes in where he supports the view that social progress can result from dealing with communication technologies. Although he realizes soon enough that technology may have had multi-celebrations in regards to their progress, but there are hardly and celebrations in social terms. In a personal point of view, I feel technology is in many ways responsible for being in the way of social progress. If according to Medosch social progress is dependent on technological progress, breeding in "favorable" grounds, that in itself is a utopian ideology. Again, Medosch understand this where he mentions that years of broadcast brainwashing cannot be swiped clean with a "turn-off button" or a "mouse". And also where i see a hint of fear in him of how technologies like mobile-camera/tv (sms/mms) may have been created without much thought put into how it affects speed and daily life surveillance.

Medosch, throughout in his essay, seems much inspired by Cornelius Castoriadis (a philosopher, psycho-analyst and political activist), who propagates a constant rebirth of democracy and renewal of the Process in times of crisis. Castoriadis is also sad that such a form of action has ceased since the 1970s, and only hints remaining are only to be found in movements like the lesbian/gay/green/other-minorty movements. while I do not disagree with this philosophy, in terms of "real" life, "the absence of an overall dynamic within society focusing on the essence of character of society as a whole", is a bit too utopian for my liking. Not that a perfect state is not in the list of anyone's wishes, but understanding "human" need and psychology ... it would take something to achieve that pinnacle.

Another interesting point that i found is where Medosch is equating the concept of self-organisation similar to that used in physics and micro-biology, "for the phenomenon of parts joining to form a larger whole with no identifiable blueprints or regulating mechanism". This reminded me of Systems Theory. While it is one way of looking at this, i feel that science has more to do with breaking down a system for a better understanding.

It is of course understandable that an ad-hoc organisation is very relative in its utility, in that how and what its rules and effects are depending on whether it's a grass-root ad-hoc or a G7/8 ad-hoc. In this sense i feel the concept of Castoriadis, "essence of character of society as a whole", is nullified.

Medosch moves on to use these examples from society to talk about how they are being used in the technological world. How ad-hoc is being utilized in an online-networked/wirless-systems world. He unfolds the benefits and issues of ad-hoc in real world. How speed and politics are affted/affect everything around. Medosch stands pro ad-hoc.