Abe - I wholeheartedly agree that left/right politics is not always the best framework for thinking about contemporary politics. Distributed politics - and I'm thinking here of the types of network protocols that Alex Galloway and (in a very different way) Larry Lessig describe in regards to online environments - is certainly an interesting a important alternative to older paradigms. Both these thinkers - and again, in very different ways - point to distributed media, or code, as a key site for the exercise of power. (And here distribution is used in a very literal and technical manner.) Lessig famously remarks that (computer) 'code is law' and Galloway borrows from Foucault to suggest that a new 'diagram of power' is to be found on the web (that he calls protocol).
<br><br>I would like to invite you to comment further on your concluding remarks about Latour, network theory, and distributed politics. Latour has (humorously) remarked on the problems of ANT as name for his philosophy, suggesting instead that something like actant-rhizome-ontology is more appropriate. He seems to be pointing to an understanding of 'network' that is quite broad. My understanding of Latour's use is that 'network' is 'what there is'. Network is something like a flattened ontology, where everyone and everything are included (or 'real'), from people, to discourse, to objects and so on. In this sense, 'network' is a very amorphous thing; simply an aggregate. I would like for you (or anyone else) to expand upon the gesture you made to 'the actual advances in network theory itself' in relation to Latour's network ontology: what can these advances illuminate? And what is missing from Latour?
<br><br>Best,<br><br>Nate Tkacz<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Nate Tkacz<br>PhD Candidate <br>School of Culture and Communication<br>University of Melbourne<br><br>Contact:<br><a href="mailto:n.tkacz@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au">n.tkacz@pgrad.unimelb.edu.au
</a> <br><a href="mailto:nathanieltkacz@gmail.com">nathanieltkacz@gmail.com</a> <br>ph: 0438 759061