Page 150 - Culture Technology Communication

New Kids on the Net 133

communicative praxis is established on top of some guidelines on how
computers should exchange data: participation in quasi-instanta-
neous, globally distributed, non-hierarchical discursive interchange.
Computer networks, as is well known, are not confined by any histor-
ical or geographical borders. As a consequence, the cultural impact of
the technical devices seems to affect arbitrary collections of users who
avail themselves of the necessary equipment and know-how. One of
the most dazzling experiences of communication on the Net, it has
correctly been pointed out, is its global egalitarianism. While it is true
that large parts of the planet are still excluded and the predominance
of the English language imposes important constraints on the partici-
pants, it is difficult to avoid an initial euphoria, a cosmopolitan state
of mind, as one becomes familiar with a machinery that can support
spatially unlimited cooperation between equals with a minimum of
administrative overhead.
The rules of TCP/IP have been laid down in one country, at a
particular time, under particular circumstances, but the scope of
their application is universal. Their inherent capacity to transform
information exchange all over the world seems much more powerful
than any special pleading in favour of local sensitivities. This way
of looking at the Internet is, obviously, reminiscent of well-known
philosophical debates centering on the universality of Eurocentric
Reason. There is a tension, if not a paradox, in one country deter-
mining the address space for all of the world. Hegemonical attitudes
are very much in evidence as the participants—government, big
business and transnational agencies—struggle for authority and
their share of bandwidth. Appeals to “international standards” are
often quite partial. But it is equally important to realize that nobody
forced the Internet on the non-US part of the globe. The univer-
salised rules of TCP/IP are acknowledged and, indeed, put to use, by
numerous local communities drawing profit from international stan-
dards they have not, admittedly, been asked about. So, here is an ac-
count of how one such activity developed.

give-l

The designation “give-l” and the original purpose of the list are in
themselves indications of the tension I have indicated. The acronym
was supposed to stand for “Globally Integrated Village Environ-
ment,” referring to a local Viennese research project trying to put
Marshall McLuhan’s ideas to the test. The list was established to