Hi Folks,
Not quite as insane today as it was yesterday....
In general, yes. I think that one of the key things we have to consider is how "communities" are being formed, what their boundaries are and how they are (or may be) both distributed and contingent. I've written some stuff on this in a different context (here's one example) and on some of the requirements and conditions relating to alliances between groups, again in a different context (here).Originally Posted by bluegreencody
One of the crucial things, to my mind, is the role played by communities in establishing both contexts of meaning, i.e. how to interpret perceptions, and in establishing broad discursive practices between communities (meta-narratives if you will). Which, in a way, gets me to responding to a comment made by Steve:
I'm going to spell out the logic I'm using - feel free to trash it guys. I'm spelling it out, however, because I think it may be useful to start a debate on assumptions when we talk about IO.
So, to start (as I usually do) with definitions:
Expanding on Bateson's definition of information as a difference that makes a difference, there are certain assumptions inherent in that formulation that he has drawn out elsewhere (cf Angels Fear). First off, the "a difference" at the start refers to perception - one must be able to perceive something in the environment as being different from the "background". But human perception is not a constant, it is a variable that can be trained and conditioned. In fact, the very differences in training of what is "background" and what is "foreground" is one of the basic differences between cultures and occupations.
- Information - "a difference that makes a difference" from Gregory Bateson.
- Operation - a consciously planned series of actions designed to produce an intended effect which may also produce unintended effects.
But in order for a sensory input, "a difference", to be counted as "information", it must "make a difference". This speaks to the processes of categorization, symbolization and interpretation (aka "hermeneutics" and the establishment of symbol systems). The first process, "categorization", talks about how perceptions are ordered or put into silos; for example, think about the word "cup" and everything that can be covered by that word. "Symbolization" assigns "meaning" (actually, emotional connotations and linkages to other symbols) to a category "object", turning the perception of something from a "sign" (thing, pattern of action, etc.) into a "symbol" (i.e. contained within one or more networks of inter-subjective meaning). The final process, "interpretation", is the other pole of symbolization - together they form a subjective feedback loop that is partially open. The act of interpretation extrapolates from the perceived symbol to treat that symbol as a clue in a broader plan of "meaning".
Okay, let me drop he theory for a bit and give an example. You're walking down the street in Boston past Parker House and you see a rather large person walk out of the pub at the corner carrying an AK 47. Now, the "rather large person" won't necessarily make much of a difference, but the AK will. What is "happening" and what will you do? How you answer these questions depends on a whole slew of factors but, primarily on a) what an AK symbolizes to you and b) how your interpretive system has trained you to react.
Okay, back to the main point: I would define an information operation as a consciously planned series of actions designed to modify either or both the symbolization and interpretation of particular signs and/or the categorization of signs in an effort to change their place in a more general system of meaning. Thus, for example, when I was noting the effect on the 2006 election, I was pointing towards AQ (and others I freely admit) attempts to firmly establish in the minds of Democratic politicians a) AQ's continued existence despite all activity to the contrary, and b) the inability of the US to sustain ongoing operations.
Why in the minds of Democrats? That's pretty simple: given the two-party system of the US AQ could pretty much count on whichever party was out of power attacking the party in power. This has nothing to do with what any Democrat may actually believe (or perceive), but it has everything to do with AQ knowing that the Democrats will attack the Republicans because that is the way the US political system works. As a result, all they have to do is continue to taunt the President and continue to deploy videos showing US troops getting hit, civilians getting killed, etc. They know that these videos will be picked up by the US media and by the Democratic party and used to attack the Republicans. I really don't know if they predicted a political message of "We support the troops but not the war", but that is immaterial - they could count on the Democrats to come up with a culturally appropriate message.
A couple of comments. First, the meme complex I mentioned shows up in many cultures and in all brands of politics. Second, "the West" is a perception that, like other perceptions, may be reified (turned into a "thing"). As such, "it" may then be disavowed. If you want other examples of the reifictation of perceptions, look at all sorts of social organizations including corporations, political parties, governments, etc. None of them exist in and of themselves - they are shared "delusions"if you will that people accepts as if they were "real" and, as a result of that acceptance, they become a "social fact" (if not a physical one. BTW, on this, take a look at Durkheim's Rules of the Sociological Method and The Division of Labour in Society).
Now back to taxes....
Bookmarks