Untitled - socium.ge

Informationalism and the network society 33and linked to specific interests and subcultures (for example, neoclassicaleconomics, religious fundamentalism of various kinds, the cult of individualfreedom, and the like). Yet, they are processed in society through their treatmentin the realm of communication. And, ultimately, they reach theconstituencies of each network on the basis of the exposure of theseconstituencies to the processes of communication. Thus, control of, or influenceon, the apparatuses of communication, the ability to create an effectiveprocess of communication and persuasion along lines that favor the projects ofthe would-be programmers, is the key asset in the ability to program eachnetwork. In other words, the process of communication in society, and theorganizations of this process of communication (often, but not only, themedia), are the key fields in which programming projects are formed, andwhere constituencies are built for these projects. They are the fields of powerin the network society.There is, however, a second source of power, probably more decisive,although this is a matter for research to decide. This is to be found in thecontrollers of the connecting points between various strategic networks: the“switchers;” for instance, the connection between political leadershipnetworks, media networks, scientific and technology networks, and militaryand security networks in asserting a geopolitical strategy. Or the connectionbetween business networks and media networks, by using, for instance, thecontrol of regulatory institutions on behalf of the business interests. Or therelationship between religious networks and political networks to advance areligious agenda in a secular society. Or between academic networks and businessnetworks to exchange knowledge and accreditation for resources for thelearning institutions and jobs for their products (meaning graduates).This is not the old boys’ network. These are specific interface systems thatare set on a relatively stable basis as a way to articulate the operating systemof society beyond the formal self-presentation of institutions and organizations.However, I am not resurrecting the idea of a power elite. There is nopower elite. This is a caricatural image of power in society, whose analyticalvalue is limited to some extreme cases of personalized dictatorship, as inPinochet’s Chile. It is precisely because there is no power elite capable ofkeeping under its control the programming and switching operations of allimportant networks that more subtle, complex, and negotiated systems ofpower enforcement have to be established, so that the dominant networks ofsociety have compatible goals and are able, through the switching processesenacted by actor-networks, to communicate with each other, inducing synergyand limiting contradiction. This is why it is so important that media tycoonsdo not become political leaders, as in the case of Berlusconi in Italy. The morethe switchers are crude expressions of single-purpose domination, the morethe network society suffocates the dynamism and creativity of its multiple