1 By: Pelle Gerritsen, 10266240 Email: pelle_243@hotmail.com University of Amsterdam MSc Political Geography
Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. P.S.M.Weir
Second reader: mw. dr. V.D. Mamadouh Date: 15-08-2018
2 Abstract
This paper covers the analysis of science fiction movies in which variants of cyberspace play a central role. This analysis tries to uncover the way in which contemporary theory on state sovereignty is portrayed in the representations of cyberspace that these movies provide. One of the main questions is whether these representations conform to traditional ideas about sovereignty, match the more modern ones, or maybe present a type of sovereignty nobody has even thought of. What makes this particularly interesting, is that both cyberspace as well as the movie that portrays it are human creations. This means both the filmmakers and the character in the movies themselves have full control over the space and its sovereignty they’re creating. It is therefore interesting to see how far they’re willing stray from the beaten path.
3
Table of contents
1. Introduction ………..p.4 2. Theoretical Framework………..p.6 2.1 Critical Geopolitics………p.6 2.2 Popular Geopolitics……….p.8 2.3 Cyberspace………p.10 2.4 State Sovereignty………..p.12 2.5 Central State Authority……….p.13 2.6 State Territoriality……….p.13 2.7 Sovereignty Regimes………..p.14 3. Methods & Research Design………..p.18 3.1 Research Aim & Hypothesis………p.21 4. Types of Cyberspaces………..p.22 5. Analysis………..p.235.1 Central State Authority………..p.23 5.1.1 Despotic Power………p.23
5.1.1.1 Forms and Level of Despotic Power……….p.24 5.1.1.2 Despotic Power and Religion………p.25 5.1.1.3 Despotic Power and Agency………....p.26 5.1.2 Infrastructural Power………..p.29 5.1.2.1 Division of Labour………p.30 5.1.2.2 Literacy………p.31 5.1.2.3 Coinage, and Weights and Measures……….p.33 5.1.2.4 Rapidity of Communication and Transportation………p.34 5.2 Territoriality in Cyberspace………...p.36 5.2.1 Centralised Power……….p.38 5.2.2 Diffused Power………p.39 5.3 Sovereignty Regimes in Cyberspace ………..p.42 6. Conclusion & Reflection………p.46 References………..p.48
4
1. Introduction
When the term ‘cyberspace’ came around during the 1980’s, it was an idea that only really existed in the work of science fiction writers like Philip K. Dick and later William Gibson who coined the term. The concept of entering human technology and existing inside of it, as if it were a physical space, seemed just as farfetched as any science-fiction story taking place in outer space at the time. However, by the early 1990’s, the internet arrived and the possibility of a cyberspace as a place you can actually visit became more plausible. As a result it wouldn’t take long before this potential new frontier became politicised. In these early days ‘cyberspace’ was heavily romanticised as a potential place one could escape to. A place that is not tainted by real world conventions and the problems that come with it. One of the people with such a dream was John Perry Barlow. A libertarian idealist who’s ideas about cyberspace, and therefore the internet, still have a following today. In his "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace" he stated that traditional governments have no sovereignty in cyberspace, nor does it have a government of its own (Barlow, 1996).
In hindsight this was a very ambitious prospect. Cyberspace in our current society is possibly better monitored and more invaded by real world governments than any place on earth has ever been before. This means you’d still have to go back to the world of popular culture and science-fiction to find a world where Barlow’s dream could be a reality. In this thesis I’ll try to find such a world. In order to do so I’ll analyse several science-fiction films that cover the subject of cyberspace using contemporary theory on state sovereignty within the field of critical geopolitics. By combining popular culture with geopolitical theory we enter the field of popular geopolitics. A field a study that has become increasingly influential over the last two decades.
The increasing influence of popular geopolitics has come with the increasing capabilities of
communication technologies. These technologies have helped to turn nation-states in so called leaky containers (Adams, 2007). This means knowledge and information have become less constrained by the nation-states that produce it. There are now more ways to produce or alter knowledge without interference of nation-states than there were ever before. The communicational spaces that
accommodate this freedom can be seen as a new geographical area, where nobody has a monopoly on knowledge yet. This type of geographical area would actually fall under the term ‘cyberspace’. However, as with all newly discovered spaces and places in the past, ideas about state sovereignty are likely to be projected upon it (Deibert, 2009). In this research I Intend to discover how, and to what extent certain conceptual categories of ‘sovereignty’ found in critical geopolitics are articulated in
5 popular science fiction films which portray ‘cyberspace’ as a physical space.
Generally speaking, the depiction of these new cyberspaces can be divided in two categories. The first depiction is one where nation-state sovereignty has no impact on these spaces or doesn't exist all together. In the early days of digital communication and information systems, the notion of the massive amount of data they stored and transmitted was made tangible by imagining it as another dimension. A whole separate universe disconnected from our own, playing by its own rules. As a result, many early adaptations of cyberspace would fit this category, including John Barlow’s dream for an independent cyberspace in the real world.
However, after the developments of 'cyberspace' over the past 20 years, Mark Graham (2013)
concluded in his paper 'Geography/internet: ethereal alternate dimensions of cyberspace or grounded augmented realities?' that an independent cyberspace doesn't exist. That the way in which people connect to and interact with 'cyberspace' is (for a large part) determined by their positionalities in our actual world. This is not only true on an individual level, but on a geopolitical scale as well. Here, nation-states try to conquer, manipulate and control their own share of 'cyberspace', just like they did with previous unexplored spaces like sea, air and space. Generally speaking this is the description for the second depiction of cyberspace in film. A description which has left the dream of 'cyberspace', as an alternative space someone could visit in order to escape our own reality, in tatters.
Still, popular science-fiction has been captivated by the idea of 'cyberspace' for decades. From Tron (1982) to The Matrix (1999), Hollywood movies have been presenting 'cyberspace' as physical worlds for years and continue to do so. These science-fiction films are therefore one of the most likely places where the idea of an independent cyberspace lives on. This independence is inherently connected to theory on sovereignty. I will therefore try to get a better picture on the independence of cyberspace in these movies by weighing it up against modern notions of sovereignty as laid out by critical geopolitics. This has led to the following research question: ‘In what way do modern science-fiction films portray sovereignty in cyberspace?’
6
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Critical geopolitics
Before narrowing down the specific topics this research is going to cover, it is helpful to get an understanding of the broader subgenres within geographic literature which the research is part of. Starting out with critical geopolitics, a movement within the geographic community that has questioned the traditional assumptions about geopolitics.
In the past the world of geopolitics had always been assumed to revolve around the narrative from state-actors for their quest to gain or retain control over territory and population. Knowledge about geopolitics was either produced by the state itself or produced by academics who used the nation-state as the focal point of their research. The founding fathers of this early form of geopolitics, like Ratzel and Kjellén, used social Darwinism as a basis for their theories. Nation-States and their societies were described as a single living organism. An organism that needed to grow in order to become and stay healthy. These founding fathers were joined by people like Mackinder who used environmental determinism to define relations between nation states and their territory (Dittmer, 2010 p.26). These geopolitical theories created the sense that hierarchy of nation states, and the dominance of some of these nation states, was determined by nature. During a majority of the 20th century these geopolitical
theories resulted either directly, or indirectly through interpretation, in political practices that ranged from questionable to the downright horrific. The Imperialist race headed by France and the United Kingdom in the early 20th century, the rise of Nazi-Germany and the Cold War doctrine are among the
most prolific political practices that can be linked to these early geopolitical ideas.
There are two concepts central to these traditional ideas about geopolitics that are specifically questioned by critical geopolitics. First there’s the idea that states are seen as a single entity that operate as if they were individuals, rather than that they are a collection of groups and individuals. Second there’s the idea that a state’s power and legitimacy is mostly acquired through territory. Basically this means the more territorial control a state has, over as large as possible territory, the more this state and all its citizens will thrive. One of the best examples of traditional geopolitics where these concepts shine through is Mackinder’s (in)famous reading “The Geographical Pivot of History.” He describes a power struggle of which the outcome is almost completely based on territorial advantages. In his dualistic worldview of the early 20th century, there were continental powers on one side and
7 resided was pivotal for the outcome of this struggle. Especially since he thought the increased railway technology at the time was going to rival the mobility advantages seafaring powers previously enjoyed. With that in mind he basically concluded whichever one side controlled the largest chunk of territory in this pivot area would “win”. As he was a British citizen, it is not a coincidence then that Mackinder favoured support for consolidating and possibly expanding the British empire at the edges of this pivot area. What could be a coincidence on the other hand, is that for a large part of the 20th century, the
power struggle between continental and seafaring powers indeed played out as a similar scenario. Mackinder and many of his peers from that time just happened to be right in their foreshadowing of the future. However, there’s also an argument for the possibility that Mackinder’s way of thinking was so pervasive among politicians during this time, that it helped establish these ideas in reality. It is known that the likes of Truman, Kissinger and all the way up to the neoconservative forces behind the government of George W. Bush, were taken in by these traditional geopolitical concepts and many geopolitical advisors connected to Western governments have followed up on this (Kearns, 2009 p.88)
Only recently, at the end of the 20th century, have scholars tried to undermine these traditions. This
new attitude to geopolitics would form the basis of what would later become 'critical geopolitics'. It were these scholars of critical geopolitics like Gearoíd Ó Tuathail and John Agnew (1992) that came up with four types of geopolitical discourse. One of which is popular geopolitics, which -as was explained in the introduction-, is the main field of interest for this research. The other three types of geopolitics these academics distinguished are formal, practical and structural geopolitics. Formal geopolitics is basically a pseudonym for classical geopolitics as it approaches geopolitics from a state-centric viewpoint. Many geographers might’ve moved on from this approach, but academics from other fields often haven’t. On top of that, state governments like to put forward these formal ideas of geopolitics, as it can often be used to strengthen their own position. This usage of formal geopolitics by politicians and policymakers can be defined as practical geopolitics. In this case classical theories within formal geopolitics are often moulded to fit certain political agendas. Because theories are being put in practice, this type of geopolitics arguably has the most direct influence on the shape of the geopolitical landscape. Later on, Ó Tuathail added what he called ‘structural geopolitics’. This type of geopolitics covers the structural processes and tendencies that condition foreign policy practices of all states (Ó Tuathial, 1999 p.110). According to Ó Tuathial some of the most important of these processes in contemporary geopolitics are globalisation and the success of techno-scientific civilizations. These processes are also extensively discussed by John Agnew in his 2009 book ‘Globalisation and Sovereignty’. They are essential to the sovereignty regimes he formulated, which this research will base its theoretical framework on. Finally, popular geopolitics is
8 a type of discourse that covers the way in which the general publics’ understanding of both formal and practical geopolitics is shaped. It does this by studying all types of media through which we gather information about geopolitics and how this influences our view on geopolitical theories and practices (Dittmer, 2010 p.34-37).
2.2 Popular Geopolitics
As my research focusses on the representation of geopolitical concepts in film, it is necessary to explain popular geopolitics’ place within critical geopolitics in more detail. Followed up by my reasoning why I think this thesis will be relevant within the discourse of popular geopolitics. Discourse meaning the way in which we talk and think about a subject, as it is simply defined by Dittmer (2010, p.32).
When the post-modern geographers came up with their movement of critical geopolitics, one way in which they changed their style was to be more focused on how global political relations are represented and how these representations could be interpreted differently (Ó Tuathail, 2006). Popular geopolitics fits right into this classification as it discusses the representations of geopolitical relations by all kinds of media. Popular media are not only capable of reaching an audience that state-actors couldn't, but their geopolitical representations could even become so influential that politicians themselves are affected by them (Dittmer & Dodds, 2008 p.440). And this influence is growing. Especially in our current times, where mass media and popular culture have more means and a larger reach for influencing interpretations of geopolitics than scholars and statesmen could ever dream of. This increase of influence by popular culture is why the lines between formal geopolitics and popular geopolitics has increasingly been blurred in the last couple of decades. It’s become harder for states to convince people of formal geopolitical narratives. The narrative in the various outlets of popular culture can just as much be read like geopolitical texts as official reports can (Grayson et al., 2009 p.158). As a result it is interesting to see how popular geopolitical sources such as film contribute to the generation and reproduction of a series of geographical imaginations. These imaginations, originally defined by Edward Said (1978) could be seen as a collection of facts and stereotypes about places in the world that together produce a world view (Dittmer, 2010 p.39). In a geopolitical context these imaginations could help sustain particular visions of states and territories (Dodds, 2006 p.119). On the other hand it could be the very same medium of film that undermines these visions of states and territories. These could be visions of nationality, hegemony or race, but also sovereignty. This research will focus on the latter in relation to cyberspace.
9 When discussing these intricacies of popular geopolitics there’s probably not a more comprehensive read than Jason Dittmer’s 2010 book ‘Popular culture, Geopolitics and Identity’. It covers the origins of popular geopolitics at first, which is followed up by several case studies each of them describing a different concept within popular geopolitics. Although it should be noted these cases are limited by the study of media, as this is Dittmer’s expertise. The concepts he does discuss, range from geopolitical representations of these media themselves, the affect they unconsciously have on their consumers and the concept of an active audience in which the consumers of media explain themselves how they experience and interact with them. A good example of an audience study like that, is Klaus Dodds’ paper on James Bond films and the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) from 2006. He analyses forum posts on IMDb from people who watched the James Bond movies (Die Another Day in particular) in order to find out how they interpreted them in a geopolitical context. Not only that, he also argues with this work that more studies should be conducted on the consumption of film by its fans. Unfortunately for him this research will stay away from audiences and focus on geopolitical representations within the content of movies themselves. The research is thereby more in line with Dittmer’s paper ‘The Tyranny of the Serial: Popular Geopolitics, the Nation, and Comic Book Discourse’ from 2007 in which he talks about how mainstream comic book series that, either intentionally or unintentionally, promote or legitimize geopolitical conventions. He argues that in favour of continuity of the story a comic book or television series inherently rejects change in its geopolitical setup. This paper however, approaches this issue of change from the opposite angle. By covering separate movies, made by often completely different people, this paper tries to find out whether popular media is capable of breaking geopolitical conventions. Specifically conventions around state sovereignty.
The research on sovereignty in cyberspace fits especially well within the discourse of popular geopolitics, because it combines real world (practical) geopolitical theories on sovereignty with generally non-existent spaces. Cyberspaces don’t have a historically geopolitical discourse connected to them and most of the time only exist within the world of science-fiction. When a space is as new or as unknown as that, popular culture theoretically has completely free range when presenting this space. The study of practical geopolitics in fictional spaces could therefore be really interesting. Saunders (2015) highlights a couple of science fiction films and series as examples of this. He talks about both Star Trek and Star Wars as presenting metaphors for the two sides in the Cold War. The protagonists being interpreted as the NATO and the U.S. while the antagonists can be interpreted as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact. Interestingly people could also be persuaded to read into the scripts with the roles reversed. He also mentions movies dealing with colonisation (Avatar, 2009) or apartheid (District 9, 2009). These are all examples of popular culture dealing with certain aspects of
10 sovereignty in a fictional universe. Even though they have a futuristic or otherworldly setting, humans still play the same kind of roles as they do in real life. They are merely players in the universe that’s created for them. The fact that I’ll be looking at cyberspaces in this research creates an extra layer of human influence, because cyberspace is created from or within human technology. You could say humans are the ‘gods’ of these worlds. The humans in these worlds are not just playing along with the rules that are set out for them, they (or at least some of them) define these rules themselves. These examples of popular culture give us, amongst other things, a chance to examine what forms of sovereignty would exist in “alternate” worlds of which ‘cyberspace’ can be counted as one. On top of that cyberspace in popular culture often exists in tandem with a real world counterpart, so there’s a possibility to study the interactions between pre-existing (state)actors and this (new) cyberspace.
2.3 Cyberspace
The two main concepts that need to be addressed and defined from the research question in the introduction, are 'state-sovereignty' and 'cyberspace'. The type of state-sovereignty in this case, applies to the defined concept of 'cyberspace' in some way.
Defining 'cyberspace' is rather difficult, as there doesn't seem to be a sole definition. In the classic sense of the term defined by William Gibson in Neuromancer (1984), cyberspace is “A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system.” Although all the computers in the human system add a geographical layer, cyberspace itself seems to be only an image, rather than a physical space you can move around in. This idea is strengthened by early contributors like Barlow (1996) and Mitchell (1996), who argue cyberspace is profoundly anti-spatial, because you can't say where it is or describe it's memorable shape or proportions. However, we’ve got to keep in mind that especially Barlow’s ideas of cyberspace were fueled by a desire to keep it out of reach for nation-state conventions like sovereignty. We should also keep in mind that this definition was developed before and during the early days of the Internet. In a more modern sense we are used to describe cyberspace as a network of online communications that could be visualized. Gibson was ahead of his time in that sense, as he did describe some proportions and memorable shapes of cyberspace: “Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data. Like city lights, receding...'” Hereby already basing it more in our own reality. Graham (2013 p.179) goes even further by arguing one's experience of cyberspace is inherently influenced by their geographical location in the physical world. Cyberspace in that sense is basically an extension or mirror of our
11 physical space. In the realm of science-fiction this can be translated as an alternate dimension (or alternative space).
A term that coincides with cyberspace, but is often confused to mean exact same thing, is virtual reality However, virtual reality is merely a means to enter a cyberspace (alternative space). Or one specific form of cyberspace. It is a reality that controls our senses, which gives us the ability to move about in this virtual environment (Cartwright, 1994, p.22). We always keep the realization that we aren’t really being transporter into this environment and that it is artificial. Modern day videogame are a prime example of that. Gibson’s cyberspace goes beyond the level of virtual reality as he describes it as “a consensual hallucination” where sense of time and self are disappearing. With this in mind one could imagine a scenario possible where this transition is complete, when your mind or body has actually entered an alternate space and you wouldn’t know it.
Finally it must be made clear that a crucial element which differentiates cyberspace from other alternate dimensions, is that it’s created within or from human technology. Because cyberspace can be seen as a physical (although artificial) space, it could therefore be subject to the same sovereignty practices humans are used to in the real world. It is here where we come back to William Gibson and his original idea of cyberspace in Neuromancer (1984). His description of cyberspace when the main character Henry Case enters cyberspace draws heavily from ‘real world’ geopolitical conventions.
“`The matrix has its roots in primitive arcade games,' said the voice-over, `in early graphics programs and military ex- perimentation with cranial jacks.' On the Sony, a two-dimen- sional space war faded behind a forest of mathematically generated ferns, demonstrating the spacial possibilities of log- arithmic spirals; cold blue military footage burned through, lab animals wired into test systems, helmets feeding into fire con- trol circuits of tanks and war planes.` Cyberspace.”
12
2.4 State Sovereignty
In order to understand what these “real world” sovereignty practices are, we need to define nation state sovereignty as a concept in political geography before we can research its relationship with cyberspace. As was mentioned before, the traditional theories on sovereignty are believed not to be sufficient anymore in describing political authority over a certain space. Especially with a growing sense of globalisation, sovereignty seems to be less dependent on central authority and territoriality or disappear altogether. However, in his analysis of globalisation, John Agnew explains that the concept of sovereignty won’t disappear, neither will it change all that much. According to him sovereignty has always been ill defined from a paradigm of nation states, whereas in reality sovereignty has always been multi-layered. International relations were never just about the interactions of several sovereign nation states, but about the interactions between the local and macro-regional as well. Not only that, these different scales are interweaved with each other. Because his ideas on sovereignty are arguably the most relevant in the discussion on the reduced influence of traditional nation states, I think they’ll be the most suitable for my research on cyberspace as well.
Agnew starts off by using a distinction made by Murphy (1996) between de jure and de facto sovereignty. De jure sovereignty being the kind of sovereignty that’s officially put forward by nation states in modern and post-modern times. It presents a level playing field in which all sovereign nations are equal to one another and their sovereignty starts and ends by well-defined state boundaries. De facto sovereignty on the other hand acknowledges state sovereignty is relative to the sovereignty of other states and non-state actors. In this equation the sovereignty of states is influenced by state hierarchy and state autonomy. Agnew claims in reality only de facto exists, this is what he calls effective sovereignty. This effective sovereignty is the type of sovereignty I’m most interested in for the purpose of this research, as it contains the actual authority a state has rather than the official symbolic one in which authority is fixed on the territorial boundaries of the state and all the people within it (Agnew, 2009 p.13). In reality sovereignty takes place as multiple layers that exist simultaneously. These multiple layers are classified by Agnew using four different sovereignty regimes. He came up with this classification by cross sectioning levels of central state authority with a degree of territoriality. Before I go further into the four sovereignty regimes that are produced by this, I’ll explain central state authority and territoriality in more detail.
13
2.5 Central state authority
Political authority of a state/government represents their legitimate practice of power. Or, as Agnew puts it: “This is a relationship in which an agent of a state can make commands that are voluntarily complied with by those over whom the state claims authority.” (Agnew, 2005 p.439) This means ruling elites need cooperation and often times approval from their subjects for their regime to work effectively. To get a more useful picture of what this means, Michael Mann has made a helpful distinction between two types of state power:
“The first sense [despotic power] denotes power by the state elite itself over civil society. The second [infrastructural power] denotes the power of the state to penetrate and centrally co-ordinate the activities of civil society through its own infrastructure.” (Mann, 1984 p.190)
Despotic power could be explained as the struggle for control over ultimate decision making between elites and interest groups. The decision on the use of coercive power (monopoly of violence) being the most extreme example. This struggle can take place both within and between states. The struggle for despotic power doesn’t really affect the everyday lives of the general public. Infrastructural power on the other hand mainly represents the ability to provide public goods. Citizenship, currencies, systems of measure, education, agricultural policies and juridical systems are some of the most important examples of this. All of these examples can be used to create a common rulebook or a shared identity, both of which are very important in the justification of sovereignty.
2.6 State Territoriality
State territoriality arises when a spatial component is added to the examples of despotic and infrastructural power given in the previous paragraph. Agnew uses the following definition to describe it.
“Territoriality, the use of territory for political, social, and economic ends, is widely seen as a largely successful strategy for establishing the exclusive jurisdiction implied by state sovereignty.” (Agnew, 2005 p.437)
In the debate about the erosion of sovereignty, deterritorialization is often seen as the culprit. However, effective sovereignty has never been purely bounded to territory in the first place. This is in line with the 3rd false assumption by Agnew. Before modern times (19th century), rulers authority
rested mostly on their despotic power for which distinct territorial definitions weren’t necessary. It was only in the wake of the American and French revolutions that a trend of increased infrastructural
14 power set in. Loyalty from and responsibility over their subjects became more important for these new rulers than ever. These new demands worked as a catalyst for territorialisation in this era. Not only did a fixed territory help administrate the increase of infrastructural power, it helped creating a shared identity and therefore loyalty within it. Under the current technological and political developments however, this focus on retaining sovereignty through territory has become less relevant. As the infrastructural powers of both states and private agencies have a greater reach than ever. Which means they’ve transcended territory as the main tool for the justification of authority.
“Authority is vested in agents who manage flow through space or through action at a distance as much as in those who manage territories” (Agnew, 2005 p.442)
What also helped this decentralised authority gain traction, is the use of so called diffused power. This power is gained through networks and the public’s associations with groups, movements and markets rather than central state authority. Diffused power is only spatially limited by the degree to which the authority that controls it is territorialised. This has not only been beneficial for non-governmental organisations and movements, but states themselves have actively participated in the use of diffused power as well. You could therefore say that regimes used to gain or retain their sovereignty through consolidation of territoriality, while they gain or retain sovereignty by being more open in recent times. (Agnew and Corbridge, 1995).
2.7 Sovereignty Regimes
With the previously mentioned definitions of central state authority and state territoriality in mind, Agnew came up with the classification system for sovereignty regimes as it is shown in table 1. While discussing these different regimes, one has to keep in mind they do not represent official agreements between supposedly equal states, but they are actual systems of rule.
Table.1 Sovereignty Regimes (Agnew, 2005)
State Territoriality
Consolidated Open
Central State Authority
Stronger Classic Globalist
Weaker Integrative Imperialist
To determine whether a state has a stronger or weaker level of central state authority, as Agnew does in his cross-sectional design for sovereignty regimes, one primarily has to look at its place in the hierarchy of power between states. In most cases it can be assumed that a lower ranking on the hierarchy of power, results in a weaker level of central state authority. These states are often dependent on another regime for a large share of their despotic and/or infrastructural power.
15 However, for every case different circumstances apply. Therefore the reasoning for why a state has a certain level of central state authority could vary between states as well as in relation to other states or different policies within a state. This means the same state could be part of more than one sovereignty regime depending on the context.
In his cross sectional design, Agnew uses a rather vague range of stronger and weaker central state authority to determine sovereignty regimes. This is because these four regimes are extreme cases. In reality no state or case fits into one of these categories perfectly. The two dimensions (authority/territoriality) are intersecting continua. Especially these days where many states have adopted a form of what is called graduated sovereignty. This means these states either let corporations take responsibility for services that used to be regulated by the state, while retaining control over their territory. Or it’s the other way round, where they give up some territorial control while retaining enough central state authority to consolidate their territory again if they have to (Ong, 1999). Two separate sovereignty regimes might therefore fit in the same category, but still differ wildly. One having a very weak level of central state authority and the other a more reasonable, but still relatively weak one.
The definitions of consolidated and open territoriality are more straightforward and self-explanatory. It basically implies the use or non-use of territory as a means to justify authority. Whether this authority is based upon despotic, infrastructural or diffusive powers is not a determining factor for the kind of territoriality it produces. Even though it was earlier explained diffused power has a large bias towards open territoriality, it’s not a given this is always the case. The formation of ISIS is a good example where diffused powers helped creating a sovereignty regime with consolidated territoriality. To determine more specifically under which sovereignty regime a regime like Islamic State would fall, you’d have to gather more information on its characteristics and the way in which it operated. What follows is an overview of the main characteristics and some examples for each sovereignty regime. As the name suggests, classic sovereignty regimes have the most in common with the traditional way of thinking about state sovereignty. This means there’s a strong central state authority over a society which bounds itself to a certain territory. Not only will it use both strong despotic and infrastructural powers to maintain this authority, it will use a high degree of territoriality to reinforce these powers as well. In reality not a lot of states fit this mould, even though officially they all do, as was discussed earlier. Generally the countries that come closest to being a classic sovereignty regime are (former) communist states. The most extreme example of this in modern day geopolitics would be North-Korea, which has come close to complete territorialisation of its powers.
16 In the case of a globalist sovereignty regime the central state authority remains strong, but the society it holds this authority over is not necessarily bound to a specific territory. A good modern day example of that regime is the United States. It has enough despotic and infrastructural power to maintain its domestic sovereignty, but these powers are not restricted to territory. This means the U.S. is capable of using its powers beyond its official territory, but there’s also the possibility of being subject to powers from other states. Generally one could assume all developed Western states are part of a globalist sovereignty regime. However, they don’t all have the same role within this regime as they’re part of a hierarchy within the regime The globalist regime relies on hegemony. It tries to enrol other states into the fold. These states that become part of the globalist regime need to retain a reasonably strong central state authority as they run the risk of becoming imperialist apart from the dominant party within the regime. The U.S. is the dominant party within its globalist regime and globalization is the driving force behind it’s infrastructural power (Agnew, 2009 p.12).
With an integrative sovereignty regime it’s the opposite from the globalist regime. Here a state’s powers might be territorially consolidated, it’s central state authority is rather weak or non-existent. We see this regime in effect with the European Union. In an integrative regime several smaller authorities have come together to create a whole or a ‘union’. This unionised authority might’ve less despotic and infrastructural power than the smaller entities it’s made out off, but they are still territorially grounded. Although the EU has gained central state authority over the years, it’s still based on the original idea of cherry picking certain issues which would benefit the smaller parties when it was carried out on a larger territory. The Schengen agreement or even Europe’s border policy as a whole is a prime example of this. The EU border is as hard a border as anywhere in the world, but it’s up to the authority of the individual states to maintain it.
Finally there’s the imperialist regime. These are regimes that neither have a strong central authority or the ability to consolidate territoriality over the powers it does have. In the modern world they’re often called failed states. Afghanistan or Iraq would fit in this category perfectly. In both cases despotic and infrastructural powers are either heavily influenced by foreign regimes or they are completely taken over by local ones. Imperialist regimes can be more subtle though, which is the case in large parts of Latin America. By adopting the dollar as theeffective currency, many states have given away one of their most important infrastructural powers. And with it reduced their territoriality, as the dollar is the most international currency in the world (Schulmeister, 2000)
It should be obvious at this point that these four sovereignty regimes don’t always exist in harmony with each other. In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, conflict mostly arises between the current globalist regime and basically all other regimes. This includes the integrative one if it (EU)
17 wishes to transform itself into a globalist regime. Possible reasons for imperialist and classic regimes are more self-explanatory as they are respectively oppressed by the globalist regime or pushed into joining it.
18
3. Methods & Research Design
My reasoning for choosing feature length films over other forms of popular culture, is simply because feature-films distributed through movie theatres are still one of the most widespread media of popular culture. Even though other media, like TV and Youtube, are catching up, feature films are still leading in capturing peoples’ imagination and have been for some time. Even going back to the World War era. This appreciation for the power of film in popular culture, is backed up by some of the more influential writers in the field of popular geopolitics.
'The movie theatre (and its film listings) has long been conceived as a significant site for the production, circulation and contestation of geopolitical meanings and framing.' (Power & Crampton, 2005)
‘As an immensely popular form of entertainment, films are highly effective in grabbing the attention of mass audiences. The power of film lies not only in its apparent ubiquity but also in the way in which it helps to create (often dramatically) understandings of particular events, national identities and relationships to others. (Dodds, 2008 p.1621)
'The cinema becomes a space where "common sense" ideas about global politics and history are (re)-produced and where stories about what is acceptable behaviour from states and individuals are naturalised and legitimated.’ (Lacy, 2003 p.614).
Regarding the specific type of movies I’ll be analyzing, I've chosen modern science-fiction movies that portray cyberspace in a way that corresponds with the definitions given in the previous chapter. This means I will make a case selection from science-fiction movies from the early 1980’s onwards. Right about the time cyberspace as a concept originated. I've decided to focus on science-fiction films because they don't have to conform to the rules of the time. A contemporary technological movie is inherently bound to the reality of the time-frame in which it's set. Plus, as was stated in the introduction, I like to find out whether staple ideas about sovereignty are still prevalent. Even if the creators of these have complete freedom to create whatever world they want in a science-fiction film. Organizations don’t even remotely have to look like nation-states, but they could still operate or behave like them. I’ve used the indicators given in the operationalization table below to determine whether a movie is fit to be analyzed.
19 The analysis of these movies are done in a similar vain to the method used by Jason Dittmer in his 'The Tyranny of the Serial: Popular Geopolitics, the Nation, and Comic Book Discourse.' Which is basically a content analysis on a specific popular medium. In this content analysis I've looked at how different forms of both cyberspace and state-sovereignty are present in the script and visuals of the film. Beyond that observations are made on how these two concepts interact with each other and in which manner they relate to the academic debate about state sovereignty. While watching the films notes have been taken of every audible or visual cue that I believe to be an indicator for any of the four sovereignty regimes. All these notes together will form a geopolitical “text” of the film. After all the notes were collected I’ve coded them according to whether they have strong or weak central authority and whether they have consolidated or open territoriality. The coding for authority is done by looking for signs of either despotic, infrastructural or diffusive power. Finally, I will try to classify each film as one or several of the four sovereignty regimes (there’s going to be a lot of overlaps). A cyberspace could for example have a strong policy on who’s allowed to enter that space, that would mean it has a strong central authority. If it’s not trying to expand or force it’s rules on other spaces, that means this cyberspace looks like it fits the classic sovereignty regime. After all movies are analyzed I will also give an overview of the extent to which sovereignty regime shows up.
In order to give structure to these observations I've laid out the definitions of both cyberspace and state-sovereignty in a workable scheme that I use during the analysis of my research (The scheme and table are presented below). The first thing I’ve used the indicators in this table for, is to make the selection of films I've eventually used for my analysis. These films had to fit one of the indicators of cyberspace according to this table. Indicators that are based on the definitions of Cyberspace laid out by the pioneers of this genre. All other indicators are related to the independent variables in the conceptual scheme and coincide with the four different sovereignty regimes.
Figure1. Conceptual scheme
Classic sovereignty regime Portrayal of cyberspace in modern sci-fi movies Globalist sovereignty regime Integrative sovereignty regime Imperialist sovereignty regime
20 Table 2. Operationalization
Concepts
Dimensions
Indicators (main examples)
Cyberspace as a
physical space
Alternate dimension
Impenetrable barriers between “reality” and
“cyberspace”
Alien rules/laws
No earthly power structures.
Part of our existing world
Virtual environments within or made possible
with human technology
Communication based networks
Data storage inside computers or on servers
High level of despotic power
High level of infrastructural power
State-sovereignty
regimes
Classic
Strong central authority
Consolidated territoriality
Almost no interference from outside
Own laws that are respected, but only hold up in
the space itself
Globalist
High level of despotic power
High level of infrastructural power
Strong central authority
Open territoriality
Authority that transcends its own space
Integrative
Low level of despotic power
Low level of infrastructural power
Weak central authority
Consolidated territoriality
Being part of a group of entities/spaces that
together form a territorial entitiy
Low level of despotic power
Low level of infrastructural power
Imperialist
Weak central authority
Open territoriality
No coherent identity
21 For the purpose of structure I’ve devised some sub questions which hopefully together will help formulating some satisfactory answers to the overall research question. Therefore the following chapters are ordered in a similar fashion.
Sub questions:
What 'type' of cyberspace do the selected films portray?
To what extent does despotic power occur in the portrayals of cyberspace? To what extent does infrastructural power occur in the portrayals of cyberspace?
To what extent are the portrayals of despotic and infrastructural power territorially bounded? To what extent do the portrayals of cyberspace represent each of the four sovereignty regimes?
Main research question:
‘In what way do modern science-fiction films portray sovereignty in cyberspace?’
3.1 Research aim and Hypothesis
State sovereignty is one of the most crucial concepts within the field of political geography. Even though the concept is much more complex as people used to think, they are still central for our understanding of relations between spaces, relations within spaces and our personal experience of spaces. As a political geographer I find it therefore intriguing to research the perception of sovereignty in a space that is still not completely defined or claimed. Cyberspace is that space. What I’m especially interested in on top of that, is how the movie industry uses this freedom of undefined space in their own creations. The cyberspace created by the humans in their movies could be completely disconnected from real world conventions about sovereignty. However, I for one am a sceptic. Previous work on other themes like Captain America, but also science-fiction properties like Star Trek have shown formal geopolitical ideas are prevalent in the entertainment business. Since I’ll cover some more recently released films in this research as well, it will be interesting to see whether this has changed over time. With this scepticism and the theoretical framework on cyberspace and state sovereignty in mind, I will start this research with the following hypothesis: Modern day science-fiction films are more likely to portray cyberspace with a classic sovereignty regime. I believe both the film industry and the general audience are not (yet) in tune with political geography’s latest theories on sovereignty regimes. Just like most academics had been for decades, the general public’s ideas about sovereignty adhered to the same paradigm of sovereign nation states (Agnew, 2005, p.438).
22
4. Type of Cyberspaces
Before I start with the analysis, I’ll give a brief overview of the science-fiction movies I’ve chosen to analyse. I’ll also explain what type of cyberspace they portray and why these cyberspace can be seen as a physical space.
The list of movies I’ve chosen is as follows, in chronological order: Tron (1982)
Videodrome (1983)
The Lawnmower Man (1992) Virtuosity (1995)
eXistenZ (1999)
The Thirteenth Floor (1999) The Matrix (1999)
Gamer (2009) Tron Legacy (2010) Inception (2010)
The selection for these movies was made based on the simple fact that the amount of choice in this subgenre is very limited and these movies represent a large portion of the total movies that were available to me (At least when it comes to relatively large Hollywood based productions). Still, I’ve also tried to represent a wide chronological spread in my choices, so that I cover each period after the initial era when the theme of cyberspace became popular. Finally I should clarify that I didn’t include The Matrix sequels, because the original better succeeds at portraying it’s cyberspace than any of the sequels do. The sequel to Tron, Tron Legacy however does add enough new material to the cyberspace portrayed in the original that it is worth its inclusion.
Regarding the type of cyberspace each of these movies portray, they can basically be categorised in 3 groups. Virtual reality (The Lawnmower Man and Virtuosity), a simulation generated from or within human technology (Tron, Videodrome, The Thirteenth Floor, The Matrix, Tron Legacy and Inception) and videogames (eXistenZ and Gamer). What these different cyberspaces have in common and what allows for the fact that they can be seen as a physical space, is that the characters that operate inside them believe they are in a real place.
23
5. Analysis
5.1 Central State Authority
The analysis starts off by dissecting the first of the two axis in Agnew’s cross-sectional design for sovereignty regimes is ‘central state authority’. This means I’ll cover despotic and infrastructural power separately while trying to determine to what extent each of these powers contribute to the level of central authority inside cyberspace.
5.1.1 Despotic power
As was discussed in earlier chapters, despotic power in a sovereignty regime generally revolves around whoever is in control of ultimate decision making. Therefore for despotic power to exist, there must be some sort of elite to enforce it as well. How these elites go about enforcing this, has historically varied to such an extent, that classifying these powers for measurement would be ineffective. Instead a more general definition applies. In relation to state power Michael Mann came up with the following:
“..the range of actions which the elite is empowered to undertake without routine, institutionalised negotiation with civil society groups.” (Mann 1984 p.188)
When measuring despotic power with a practical approach, you’d have to judge the level of despotic power case by case. This could range anywhere between ‘anarchy’ for weak despotic power to ‘being able to take someone’s head without question’ for strong despotic power. This case by case approach is what this research is aiming for as well, even though I’ll try to find connections between them. The analysis that follows in this chapter, tries to make a judgement on which kind - and what level - of despotic powers are present in the cyberspaces of the movies that are analysed. And, more importantly, who or what is in control of these powers. I’ll mostly focus on the latter, because after analysing these films, it occurred to me that each of these portrayals of cyberspace show at least reasonably strong levels of despotic power. Who or what is in control of these powers is therefore more relevant when determining a cyberspace’s despotic power. When discussing despotic power for each example of a cyberspace, it is important to keep in mind they are referred to as potential sovereign nation states. No matter how farfetched that may seem.
24
5.1.1.1 Forms and Level of Despotic Power
Even though all these movies have elements of strong despotic power portrayed in them, there is a difference between the methods and relative strength with which they are enforced. One of these portrayals is the traditional idea of despotic power as the consequence of the unchallenged position of a single person. One of the best examples of this is the movie Gamer. In Gamer, despotic power is carried out to such an extreme degree, that anyone operating within it has no free will. There’s one person that effectively holds despotic power over anyone operating inside the Cyberspace as well as people outside of it. The person that holds this power is also the creator of this cyberspace.
Creators of the cyberspace holding most -if not all- of the despotic power, recurs throughout several other portrayals of cyberspace. In The Matrix, the people living inside The Matrix are completely at the mercy of the machines that operate it. It goes as far as that these people have all been made slaves for the machines without knowing that they have. Similar powers are displayed by the creators of Videodrome, in which they slowly take over people’s minds with hallucinations they send out through a television signal. At first this power is mostly restricted to what people think and see, but eventually expands to include their actions as well. Where in the first half of the movie it is possible for other characters or events to break up the hallucinations, in the end the main character (Max) is completely at the mercy of the hallucinations that are presented to him. The power of the creators is made especially apparent when Max hears their voices everywhere and follows their commands without being able to challenge them. This lack of control is also embodied by an attractive female (Niki) who he meets after his first contact with the Videodrome signal. Where he can’t stop her from hurting herself in the beginning, in the conclusion of the film she’s so powerful that she’s able to convince him to let his body die and follow her in making a complete transformation into his television persona, which they call the new flesh.
Another characteristic of despotic power which is translated to these worlds of science-fiction, is the ability for anyone or anything that holds this power to shape the environment as they see fit. In these cases despots might not have absolute control over people’s minds or their actions, but they do have absolute control over the physicality of the cyberspace in which they operate. This still shows a high level of despotic power, but it is a relatively lighter version of the aforementioned. A perfect example of this would be the artificial dream environments created in Inception. In Inception cyberspace is a representation of someone’s subconscious, which can be entered with the use of some artificial sleeping technology. What the human representations inside this dream do, is completely in the hands of this subconscious, with only the person the subconscious belongs to having some control over it.
25 The creation of environments which are then filled by someone’s subconscious on the other hand, can be completely controlled. That control ranges from pre-planned construction of entire dreamworlds, to controlling the laws of physics once inside the dream. The main characters in the film that have this power are called ‘architects’. Architects of worlds in which someone’s subconscious takes place. Other movies where absolute control of the environment is shown, include the earlier mentioned Videodrome and The Matrix, but it can be seen in Virtuosity, The Thirteenth Floor and The Lawnmower Man as well.
In the other three films however, the level of despotic power is more ambivalent. Despotic powers definitely exists, but they are shared. In both Tron and Tron Legacy the villain is capable of controlling the minds of the cyberspace populous, while our protagonist is at least partially in control of the environment. Unlike Tron, the despotic duties in eXistenZ are shared without being divided. The creator of the cyberspace as well as the people that enter the cyberspace with him, all have some control over both environment and behaviour. Even though they share their control, that doesn’t mean their power isn’t absolute. Because once they’re inside, they find themselves incapable of disobeying some of the rules that were programmed in by the creator, but they are capable of creating some of their own. Either way, the others have to follow them.
5.1.1.2 Despotic Power and Religion
It’s apparent by now that especially the creators of the given cyberspace play an important role in the portrayal of despotic power in most of these films. It shouldn’t therefore be a surprise that the most prominent similarity between the portrayal of despotic powers in each of these films, is the appropriation of divine attributes and insignia to establish or reinforce despotic power. A practice that’s been in use by rulers since the prehistoric era (Ornan, 2013 p.573). This either takes place as a god or messiah complex projected onto one of the characters or a more general metaphor for creationism. Although, more often than not, literal religious terms are used to describe characters or groups.
The most obvious example of a messiah complex, is the main character of Neo in The Matrix. Not only do people call him ‘the One’, his portrayal even includes an almost literal description of the definition of a messiah when it is explained to him why he is ‘the One’.
Morpheus: “When the Matrix was first created, there was a man born inside who could change the world as he saw fit. He freed the first of us.. as long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free. After he died, the Oracle prophesised his return and that his coming would hail the destruction of the matrix; End the war; Bring freedom to our people.” The Matrix (1999)
26 Of course, the nature of a messiah implies believers or followers. Therefore the film includes a distinction between people who believe he’s ‘the One’ and people who doubt him or believe he’s not. This idea of believing and even worshipping is also seen in both Tron and Tron Legacy. Instead of a messiah, the creator of the cyberspace is worshipped as if he were a god, with the physical world he comes from almost representing a heaven. Subjects inside the cyberspace who believe this, are even persecuted for being ‘religious fanatics’. A more subtle metaphor for the messiah complex is very well portrayed in Videodrome where one of the creators of the Videodrome, a man called O’Blivion, is referred to as a ‘media-prophet’. Even though this reference is not mentioned in tandem with his creation of Videodrome specifically, his ‘messiah’ status in this world is reinforced by the fact that he operates from his own church. Many of the religious references in the other movies fall somewhere between the more subtle, like this one, or the more blatant, as it is shown in The Matrix. From a game designer being called a ‘goddess’ in eXistenZ, to the main character in The Lawnmower man claiming to be the ‘God’ of virtual reality, to the following quote from the cyberspace villain in Virtuosity when he’s rebelling against the person who programmed him:
Sid: “You see, in your world, the Lord gives it and the Lord takes it away, but in my world, the one that gave me life, doesn’t have any balls.” – Virtuosity (1995)
These are just a couple of examples of religious metaphors used to describe despotic figures in these movies, but there are many more. Only the movies Gamer, The Thirteenth Floor and Inception don’t use religious terms to describe its despots. Although an analogy for religion could be seen in each of them.
Because there is this inherent link between religious mythology and despotic power, Sub sequentially the powers these religious figures or groups possess is overwhelming, rarely questioned and above all, ultimate. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean these powers are carried out in the name of the sovereignty regimes from the cyberspaces discussed here. Sometimes they’re part of a sovereignty regime that has its origins outside the cyberspace.
5.1.1.3 Despotic Power & Agency
Whether the cyberspaces in these movies actually possess any of the despotic powers that are explained in the description above, depends primarily on whether one looks at a cyberspace as a separate and (potential) sovereign space. If we were to analyse these cyberspaces as just an extension of their physical counterparts, a distinction between cyberspace and ‘physical’ space would not be necessary and all strong despotic powers that were earlier discussed, could then be contributed to the
27 cyberspace’s sovereignty regime. The reality for many of these cyberspaces however, is that the despotic powers inside them are part of sovereignty regimes operating from outside the cyberspace. Such a regime is very well portrayed in The Matrix. The machines in control of The Matrix might have an incredibly strong level of despotic power, their regime is based in the physical space of earth on the outside. The cyberspace of The Matrix is only a tool for them to use and control humans. Any notion of this cyberspace having some despotic power of its own would not serve their purpose. The humans on the other hand have no interest in claiming despotic power for the cyberspace either. The ones living inside are completely oblivious to the reality of despotic power in their world, while the people living outside have the desire to destroy it. The level of despotic power of The Matrix is therefore extremely weak or even null.
That same dynamic where the cyberspace is totally controlled by an outside power, while powers from the inside want to destroy it, can be seen in Gamer and Videodrome as well. Even though in Videodrome, the position of despotic power over the Videodrome from the outside is being challenged throughout the movie. When the original creators of Videodrome have a falling out, they fight for control over it until each of them is dead. This might diminish the despotic power of whoever is in control of Videodrome from the outside, but it doesn’t enhance the despotic power of the cyberspace from the inside either. Even though the movie makes it purposely ambiguous whether or not the people in control of Videodrome exist outside the cyberspace they created, they are presented to both the viewer and the main character as if they do. This means that all the characters that appear to be in control of Videodrome are presented as people from outside the Videodrome. So, even when the Videodrome is still operational after its creators are dead, the movie presents no evidence for this cyberspace possessing any of these powers for itself.
This ambiguity on whether to place characters with despotic power inside or outside the cyberspace, is even more prevalent in eXistenZ. Most of these movies question the perception of reality, but especially David Cronenburg likes to play around with that. That’s why eXistenZ leaves it completely open to interpretation whether the whole movie takes place inside a cyberspace or only during the majority of it. If the it’s the latter, all despotic power is in the hands of (literally) players from the outside. If the whole movie does indeed take place inside cyberspace, the level of despotic power would still be quite weak. The power dynamic between all the characters is so chaotic, that it could very well be described as an anarchy. Another film where a despotic power vacuum like this emerges, is Inception. As was mentioned in the previous paragraph, the ‘Architects’ possess some great powers regarding the creation of ‘cyber-dreams’. The problem is that again, these ‘Architects’ are intruders, infiltrating the cyberspace. The subconscious filling the dreams on the other hand is in control of the
28 person the subconscious belongs to, but only partly. They have the ability to defend themselves against intruders for example, but throughout the film there are situations where the main character loses control over its subconscious completely. Then there’s the question whether the person the subconscious belongs to is actually part of the ‘cyber-dream’ he’s in. One could argue he’s just a visitor from the ‘awake-world’ as well. Either way the despotic power of the subconscious is not that strong. The subconscious is either partly disobedient or for a large part loyal to an outsider.
Even in movies where the despotic power of cyberspace does indeed seem to be very strong, they make sure to point out this cyberspace regime is villainous and will be defeated in the end. This is true for both Tron and its sequel, Tron Legacy. The sequel even goes as far that the cyberspace villain does not only desire total control over, what he calls, a ‘perfect’ cyberspace, but plans to invade the physical world of the users (humans) as well. He sees himself as the liberator from the tyranny of imperfect users and intends to rid their own world of imperfection next. However, still the humans/users prevail using their own despotic powers to defeat him. In Virtuosity, a program living inside the cyberspace called ‘Sid’ is also in rebellion against its human “creators” (who live on the outside) and is even successful at invading their world. And yet, the humans are able to undermine and defeat him. Outside despotic power outweigh the despotic power from the cyberspaces themselves in these cases. Therefore one could say despotic power is still portrayed as relatively weak here.
Finally there are only two movies where individuals inhabiting a cyberspace can claim they were victorious over an outside despotic power. Most notably in The Lawnmower Man. The whole story could be translated as the establishment of independence of Virtual Reality as a world. Initially the virtual reality only exists as a service for human enhancement. Whether this is for the government’s military purposes or a scientist’s human evolutionary purposes. At the end of the movie however, the VR’s test subject is completely taken over by his VR environment both mentally and physically. Where he had been suppressed by religion in the first half of the movie, this test subject now becomes a god himself, the VR god. As he virtually becomes VR, nobody is able to challenge or control him from inside this virtual reality nor from the outside. This final representation of cyberspace in this film possesses a great deal of despotic power. A level of power that is not reached by the cyberspace in The Thirteenth Floor, but it was able to overthrow it’s despotic creator nonetheless. Even so, the despotic power inside the cyberspace of The Thirteenth Floor is quite low, as it’s a direct copy of a democracy from the physical world.
The common thread in these films is the idea of cyberspaces holding despotic power of their own is seen as undesirable by the factions living or operating outside of it. This is true for each of them, without exception. In only five of the movies that desire for despotic power actually comes from
29 within the cyberspace itself. Namely: Tron, Tron Legacy, Virtuosity, The Lawnmower Man and The Thirteenth Floor. And only in The Thirteenth Floor is this desire portrayed by our protagonists. This means in nine out of ten movies a cyberspace that holds despotic power of its own is portrayed to the audience as something undesirable.
5.1.2 Infrastructural Power
As was stated when explaining the theory of sovereignty regimes, there’s a second power with which central (state) authority can be achieved or strengthened. Where despotic power means some form of (state) elite holds power over its society by itself, this second power is about the ability of the state to penetrate and centrally co-ordinate the activities of civil society through its own infrastructure (Mann, 1984 p.190). This is called infrastructural power. This power often arises on its own and can therefore exist without the presence of despotic power. A despotic power on the other hand, could also use and promote infrastructural power to strengthen its central authority.
Throughout history, there are many different examples on how infrastructural power can be acquired. However, although there are a few exceptions, the general rule is that infrastructural power of states has continuously increased over time. This is because infrastructural power is all about the logistics of political control. And these logistical techniques have become more widespread and more effective with continuous technological development.
Although there are many specific logistical techniques that could be discussed, Michael Mann categorizes four broad examples that cover the most influential techniques used throughout history. These are also the examples the analysis in the chapter will be based on. For clarity, I’ll paraphrase his description of these four examples. ‘a) A division of labour which is centrally co-ordinated. b) Literacy and the storage of information. c) Coinage, weights and measures. d) Rapidity of communication and transport.’ (Michael Mann 1984 p.192)
Unlike despotic power, infrastructural power is not something one person or a group can possess. Instead, it’s the ability of a state to use the aforementioned techniques in order for it to achieve, maintain or strengthen its central authority. I therefore won’t discuss who is in control of power this time, but treat the occurring infrastructural power as a characteristic of the cyberspace itself.
