The Net Effect

Romanticism, Capitalism, mld

and tl,c
the Intcnlct
Interuet

Thomas Streeter

\Villiam Blake's
179,/circa
180,
Sl;ienrist Isaac
isaac
WilIi:lm
Bl:J.ke's l7!:ls/circa
179s/circa 1805
180s print "Newton,"
Newton,~ represents the S(:ienriS[
Newton in :Ia W:lY
way that expresses Blake's view of the limits of the
dle calculared
calculated scienill,
tific ft:J.soning
reasoning for which Newton
Newton was bmous.
famous. The colors and texwre
texture of rhe
the rock
and rhe
the body
body loom over
ovet the brighr
bright but small page of measurement in the lower
right
right hand corner, expressing Blake's belief in the primacy of rhe
the creative imagi-.
narion.
nation. Or :IS
as Blake wrore
wrote himself in Tlw
11]( Marriagr of Hcalltll
Healltll alld
and Hdl, "'vVhar
~\Vhat is
now proved was once, only imagin'd."
.
imagina:

III
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS
New York and London

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS

New York and London
www.nyupress.org
2011 by New York University
All rights
righrs reserved

References ro
to Internet websites (URLs) were accunuc
accur;l.[e at the time of writing.
Neither the author nor New York University Press is responsible for URLs
that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
Cauloging-in-Publication Dara
Streeter, Thomas.
The net effect: romanticism, capitalism, and the internet
interner / Thomas Streeter.
p. em. - (Critical cultural communication)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8J47-4115-3 (cl : alk. paper) - ISBN 978-0-8147-4116-0
(pb : alle paper) - ISBN 978-0-8147-4Jl7-7
978-o-8147-4Jl7-7 (ebook)
1. Computers and civilization.
eivili:;:;ation. 2.
2. Computers-Social aspects.
3. Information tedlllology-Social
technology-Social aspects.
aSpects. 4. Internet-Social aspects.
l. Tide.
QA76.9.C66S884
2010
303.48'33-clcn
2010024294
303.48'33-dc22
New York University Press books are printed on acid-free
acidfree paper,
and their binding ma,erials
materials are chosen for strength and durability.
We strive to use environmentally responsible suppliers and materials
to the greatest extent possible in publishing our books.
Manurncrnred
Manufactured in the United States of America
c 1098765432
p 109876543 2

To my childhood friends The Hacks, with whom [I discovered the boyish

pleasures of technological fiddling long ago and who understood
hJcking
rerm hJd
had been byered
layered wirh political connorations.
h:lcking before the term
I thank them for their
rheir dedicated friendship over the decades.

Contents

A,kllowl~dglllel!t'

illtroallaiol!

nSelf-Motivating Exhilaration";
On rhe Cultural Sources of Compurer Communication

3 Missing rhe Ner: TIle 19805, Microcomputers, and

the Rise ofNeoJiberalism

69

.9

4 Networks and the Social Imagination

93

5 TIle Moment of Wired

119

6 Open Sou tee, the Expressive Programmer, and

rhe Problem of Property

138

COllclusion: Capita/i'lIl, Passiolll, DWlOrracy

168

Notes

189

Illd~x

213

Abolltthe Author

221

"
"

:~

vii

44

Romanticism and the Machine:

The Formation of the Compurer Counterculture

17

Acknowledgments

long in cOnling.
coming. as I grappled with a moving rartarget
ordin.ary surprises.
surprises, Here I em
(.an only mention some of
get while adjuSting
adjusting to life's ordinary
ehe
the individuals
individu.als who helped me along
.along the W3Y.
way, LiS:!
Lisa Henderson gave me excel[ellt
parience, and mon of all wondernll
wonderful affinnarion
affirmation
lent critical
critical readings, discussions, patience,
\Vllile chis
Sylvia Schafer for suggesting the
while
this book finally
finally came
Clme together. Thanlu
Thanks to Sylvia
tiele and providing encouragemenr
badly needed it. Excellent
tide
encouragement at a time
rime when I b;adly
advice,
;advice, criticism, and inrc:lJigent
inte~igent discussion came from many.
m;any, including Michael
Michael
Curtin,
K;athy j:ox,
Fox, Tarleron
Tuleton Gillespie, Mary Lou
Lou
Currin, Chriuina
Christina Dunbar-Heuer,
Dunbar-Hester, Kaehy
Christian Sandvig.
S2Jldvig. Ross TIlOmson,
Thomson, and
and
Kete, Beth
Beth Mintz,John
Mintz, John Durham Peters, Christian
Kere,
Fred Turner.
Turner. TIlanks
Thanks to Ben
Peters
and
RumWl
Kleis
Nielu:n
for
their
enthuFred
Bell
Rasnlus
Nielsen lor
siasm and
and for inviting me
me to some uimulating
stimulating seminars.
semin2rs. Thanks ro
to the principrinep.als of the Key
Key Centte
Cultural Policy
Studies in Brisbane:,
Brisb;l;ne, Australia,
Austr.ilia, for a
Centre for Cultural
Policy Srudies
pals
in the summer
stimulating fellowship in
summet of 1999. I am grateful
gr.ueful to
to the Institute for
fot
rhe &culcy,
especially
Advanced
1000-1001 3nd
;l;nd to
ro the
fieulry, especially
Adv:anced Study
Study for supporr
support during 1000-1001
Clifford Gccm:
Geeru: and Joan
Joan Score,
ScOtt, and
and all the members of the School of Social
Science rhar
thar year for smart
smarr and
2Jld helpful
helpful comlllellrs,
commentS, criricism,
criticism, conversation,
cOlwersation, and
encouragement. TIlanlc!
SOlirah Baner-Weiser
BanWeiu:r and
OlInd Kent A. Ono,
Thanks to series
u:ries editOrs
editors Sarah
to NYU Press editors, reviewers, 2nd
2Jld staff,
st:df, and
2Jld ro
to copyediror
copyeditor Jay Williams for
rheit
m)' foibles. I am grateful to
ro che
the
their excellent help, suggestions, 2nd
and ro[er3nce:
tolerance of my
rhe Universiey
Universiry of Vermonr,
Vermont, United AC3demics,
Academics, which soaked up
faculty union of the
my time bur
but also
;also provided
provided me a window ontO
onto what
whar a0lI mature
m;l;ture approach
OlIpproOlich to democratic
but by no means leasr,
least,
trade decision making might aCUlally
actually look like:.
like. And last
lUI but
thanks to my
my son Seth, who m3kes
makes life a;I; constanl
constant surprise:
surprise and a;I; joy, no matter
his music.
music.
how dark his
THIS WORK WAS

ix

Introduction
'Communication"
is a rtgisrry
Communic:nion"'s
r~giS[ry or
of mootrn
mod~rn longings.
- John Durham Pertn'
Per~n'

IT IS STILI.
STILL commOn
common in some circles to assume Ihat
that rarionaliry,
rationality,
fundamentally differrechnology,
modern are
tcdmology. and the modem
are somehow opposed to or funcb.ment:lJly
rhe imagilUltion.
imagination, nature,
TIlis book srarrs
srans from
&om
ent from culture, the
nature. and
and expression. This
is
not
so
and
that
the
internet
is
prima
facie
evidence
of
the
premise
that
this
so and
the
rhe
thar.
h:u been
wirh all manner of human
that. -nle
The internet
inurnet ius
bun tangled
tangled up with
human longings,
longings. in
both obvious ways-for example.
example, the internet stock bubble-and more
more subtle
ways.
cert:l.in aspects of
ofits
design and rrends
rrends in
in its
ways, sueh
such as certain
its technical design
irs regulation. In
In
hopes orbetter
ofberter understanding both technology and longings,
longings. this book gives thar
that
entanglement a dose
close look.
entanglement
in looking at rhe
the internet
inl'ernct this way is our networked
Part of what emerges in
the giant
desktop
desktop computers
computers are not so
so much direcr
direct descendants of the
giant computers
computers
of the 1960s
1960S as they are reactions
reactions againsr
against those compurers
computers and whar
what Ihq
they represented,
1960S, engisented. a reaction
rea.crion thar
that was ro
to some degree
degree cultural. Beginning in the 1960s,
neers
neers who had different impulses for how ro
to build and
and use computers began ro
to
draw on
romanticism to construct justifications for their
their
on what
whar is properly called romanticism
alternative
the 19705
1970S :llld
and 19805,
1980s, skilled popular writers like Stewart
Stewan
alrernative designs. By the
Brand, Ted Nelson, and Steven Levy joined them [0
to elaborate these
these gestures into
a more fully articulate vision.
TIle
The original giant
giant computers were often associated
aSso03ted with misguided efforts
dlOns to
somehow calcul:ue
human dilemmas: to control the horror of
calculate our way out of human
nuclear
nuclear warfare, for example.
example, or
or to win the Vietnam war, or to industrialize
industrialiu secsec"
retarial
ret:lrial work, or to turn
rum school
school children into studious and obedient users of elece1ec"
computers to control
tronic encyclopedias. Sensing the folly of these
these plans to use computers
human complexiry
complexity and
and to frame it in a predictable grid, increasing numbers of
the act of computing as a form of expression,
individuals began to reinterpret the
exploration,
exploration. or art, to sec
see themselves uas artist, rebel, or hoth,
both, and to find commuthat interpretation.
imerpremtion. People
nities with similar experiences that would reinforce thM
need to express themselves, it was said, people wanr
want and need spontaneity, erccreativity, or dragon-slaying
dt:lgon-slaying heroism, :md
and direer,
direct, unplanned illteracrion
interaction with com:ltiviry,
puters offered a kind of enticing. safely limited unpredictability thar
chat would fulfill

those goals. l11at

11,at is why we need small ,ompute:rs
computers instead of
of mainframes, the
argulllenr
computers instead of dedicated word proargument WClJ(,
went, why we need personal ,omputcrs
cessors, why we need the open, endow-end
end-to-end distributed networking of the internet
inStead
instead of proprietary ,0rpOrate
cOtpOrate systems, why we:
we should invest in 1990S dotcoms,
why we need
need open source software. These
11,ese discursive habits, I have found, had
con5Cquenccs.
consequences. For uanlple,
eJtample, nc:oliberalism's
neoliberalism's quarter century reign as a hegemonic
politkal
political economic ideology owes much w
to the linkage of romantic tropes to netbecome an important colworked computing. At the same rime, the internet has bome
lective thought
thought objcct
object for considering new ways of thinking about democracy.
None of this is causc:d
caused by romanticism alone. Causes are
;Itt: complicated,
compliatcd, and in
any case romanticiSm,:IS
romanticism,;IS I undersrand
undersr:md it, is always a reaction
reacrion 10 something; it
ir is in
trwds, we will see, iliat
the specific dynamics of irs
its interacrion
interaction with other tremis,
that romanricism
ticism can have consequences. Bur
But whar
what this book
book suggests is that the specific
forms of the
rhe life-shaping digital machinery we have surrounded ourselves with
of sOl11e kind
are
ut not the produer
product of.some
kind of rechnologicat
technologic:al necessity;
necessiry; it is not that we once
mistaken idea
had a misraken
idea about what computers were for
fOr and
and now have discovered
disccwercd
is this "the
their"true"
their-true- uses. Nor is
-the matket"
marker- at work alone;
alone; most of what is described
in this
this book
book t:lkes
takes pl:lce
place in
in situations where
whete buying and selling arc
are not the operaopen.tive
ti\'e forces.
fOrces. The poinr
point is clur,
that, while economic
economic and technological forces of course
have
ha\'e played
plared a role,
role, the internee's
internet's consrruction
COnStruction is peppered
peppered with profoundly cuiculrural
tural forces: the
rhe deep
deep weighr
weight of the remembered pasr and the
the related,
related. collectively
organized pressures
pressures of hurnan
human passions
passions made atticulate.
articulate..
111is
with computer
This is a book,
book, then, about America's
America's romance with
compUter communication,
communiation,
a history
history of
of rhe
the dense
dense inter:lccion
interactiOn of rhe
the American social and political imaginarion
imagination
It is a look ar
with the development of
with
of internet
internet technology.
technology. It
at how
how culture
cultute has influenced the
rhe consrruction
construction of the internet and
:md how the structure
structUre of
of the
rhe internet has
pbyed
played :l.a role in culmres
cultures of social and politica[
political thought. In rhar
that sense, ir
it is a case
case
Nrt Effrel
srudy
study in ~how
-how innimtions
instirutions think.~
think.-' TIlt
1I1( Ntt
Effrrl explores various ways computer
conllllunkation
communication has been conceived o~"Cr
O\1:r the years of its dc:vdopmem,
developmenr, wirh
with a
focus on conceptions rhar
that have
have influenced
influenced policy. Beginning with the 1950S, when
machilles for
fOr r:apidly
rapidly solving complex
computers were primarily imagined as machines
mathematical
mathematical problems, rhe
the book rraces
traces the appearance and character
characrer of orher
other
notiOns
notions of what connected computers might be for: as means for fighring
fighting nuclear
wars in the 1950S, for example,
as sYStemS for bringing mathematical
eX:lmple,:ls
m:lthematical certainty to
the messy complexity
complexity of social
soci:ll life in rhe
the earl)'
early 19605,
1960s, as automated writing and
teading
reading machines
machints for enlightening
enlighttning individuals in rhe
the bte
late 1960s.
1960s, as counterculrural
countercultural
pbygrollllds
playgrounds in the 1970S, as an icon for
fOt what's good about free markets in the
19805,
1980S, as a new frontier
ftontier to be conquered in the early 19905,
1990S, and, by the late 1990S,
1990S.
as the rranscendence
utopia. 1he
rr:lnscendence of markets
markets in an an3rchist
an:lrchist open source utopia,
11,e book is
not JUSt 3bout
rhe truthfulness of these v;lriouS
:lbollt the
various conceptions-inaccutacies
conceptions-inaccuracies arc
2

[lltroduction
Introduction

often
re\ealing-bur about their rffrets
q{e![$ accurate or nOt,
llot, their impact both on the
often revealing-but
conStrUCtion
and on
011 its receprion
reception in
in other parts oflife.
consrructioll of the internet and
Approach:
How the Feel
Feel of Modern Life Shapes Modern Living
Instud
internet as a h3rbingc:r
harbinger of the fumre,
future, Tht
Thr Nct
Nrt Effrel
Effullooks
InsrC'3d of looking at the imernet
looks
at itit more
mote as an expression of the times. This is nor
not a book about the road
rQOId ahe:td,
OIheOld,
inventing
rhe next big thing,
in\'enting the future, the
thing. or the fumre
future of ideas, creativity,
creOitivity, or the
wartling about
might happen or
economy. Nor is it a warning
Wout whar
what mighr
Or what might be lost
if we do nor
not ace.
aer. Sometimes exploring rhe
the complexity of what has
hu actually
actu.a1ly happened
pened offers more useful
useful insighr
insight [han
than rhe
the urgent
urgenr gropings
gtopings of prognostication. So,
backwards
ratber
[;Jlher like Walter 13e,~amin's
Benjamin's angel of history, -nIt
n~ Net
Nrt Effect
Effm looks b.tdcwarth
on
ways
that
soci.tl
and
cultunl
trenth
more
than
forwards!
It
focuses
as
much
social and cultur:ll trends
mote
forwards.' Ir
have shaped the interncr
and it finds
internet as
as on
on how the internet has shaped
shaped trends,
trenth, .tnd
nnth
preinternet past in places where others have seen
the imprint of themes from the preintemer
rhis by
by mixing historical
sharp historical breaks. Ir
It docs
does all this
histotical storytelling with discussions of philosophical and theoretical issues.'
issues." And it is written with a sense
eye towards
of inquiry,
of
inquity, with
with 1II0rc
more of an eye
towards answering
answering questions than winning
winning arguments.
ments. .
This book began, then, with several
sevenl seu
sers of
of questions.
questions. One
One set came out
our of
111is
my
the Air
my earlier work.
.....ork. [n
In ScI/iug
&Iling tlx
Air I found rhat
thar the devc:lopment
development of broadcast
as mind-blowing in
rhe internet
interner was in 199",-can
technology-easily
rechnology-easilyas
in 19ao
19:10 as
as the
1994-can
be seen
seen as a01 kind of social philosophy
philosophy in practice,
practice, as something
something rhat
that was
W:l..S 3S
as much
a product of social visions as
:IS of technical or economic necessities.
necessities, Over
Ovet the long
long
term,
ttrm, I found
found that
thOit broadcast policy was neither
neither a blueprint for reality
realit')' nor just
an ideology that
.tn
rhal legitimates or emlbles
enOibles decisions made elsewhere. Rather,
Rathet. policy's contradictions and misrccognitions
misrecognicions were themselves a key parr
part of the social
(onsrruetion
COnstruction of the institutions and
and tcchnologies
technologies of bro3dcaning;
broadcasting; the focus was
on rhe
the productivity of policy discourses, even when they were contradictory.'
contradictoty,' As
the internet grew in shape
shape and
and force
fOrce in the 1990S, I was struck by rhe
the parallels
between
berween the 19aos
19:10S and rhe
the 1990S 3nd
and wondered
wondered how the
the visions associated with
the internet mighr
might similarly
similarly be shaping policymaking.
As I watched
watched developments with these p3tal1cls
pOirallcls inl11ind,
in mind, however, I was struck
by two
tWO rnore
nlOre things: first, rhe
the rCI11:lrk3ble
remarkable revival of the nlarket-enamored
market-enamored political
cal economic pr:lttiees
practices of neoliberalism in the mid-1990S and, second, the often
noted but not
nor fully explained exrent
extent to which $omething
something as
:IS dry and seemingly
technocratic a$
as cornputer
computer network policymaking waS
was riddled
riddled wirh
with odd momenrs
mOmentS
of passion, often in ways that
thar seemed to confound the received ideas abour
about the
natute
nature of cotporate
corporate capitalism. Beginning with
wirh an essay first
nrSt published in 1999,'
1999," I
3

Incroducrion
Introduction

soughr to develop an explanation of how rebellion, self-expression, and rechnoltechnology and market policies seemed to be harnessed together in a historically unique
way, including in places where one would leasr expeer
expect it, such as computing systems funded by the military.
And, the more 1 thought about all of these concerns, the more they seem~d
intertwined. Understanding one of them depended on understanding the others.
So, finally, the book expanded into an exploration of how the feel of modern life
shapes modem
modern living. an inquiry into the imeractions
interactions of subjectivities or personal experiences with technological, political, and economic relations. My initial observations about the internet became the basis for a case study that helped
understand larger questions aboUT
about culmre,
culture, society, and modern life.1
How do broadly shared habits of thought change over time~ Some writers work through the history of ideas, as read through the lives and writings of
famous authors. We inherit our ideas about rights, liberty, and markets from John
Locke and Adam Smith, it is said, or the role of the'sixties counterculmre
counterculture in computing in the nineties can be understood by a dose look at the life and work of
Stewart Brand, whose influential career spanned both periods. Others look more
to culmre and find zeitgeists or worldviews in cultural forms. Jacob Burckhardt
saw a Renaissance spirit in the art and architecture
architecmre of sixteenth-century Italy, for
exanlple,
example, and more recendy scholars have seen postmodern celebrations of the
malleable self in the cyberpunk-influenced advertisements, novels, and films of
the 1980S.' \Vhile I have borrowed from work in both these traditions, my own
approach tackles issues on a more sociological level.
Traditional intellecrnal
intellectual history tends to
ro carefully trace ideas over time through
the biographies of individuals who rake
take up those ideas and assumes rhar
that the ideas
have meaning and coherence through those biographies. This has the advantage
of linking the development of ideas to real individuals and their direct contacts
contaers
with others; it is an approach thar
that eschews overgeneralization or a hand-waving approach to ideologies. Yet locating the coherence of a system of thought in
the biographies of individuals also risks a false clarity. John Locke atticulated
articulated an
individualist theory of property rights, but the analogies between what he wrote
and the intellectual habits of "'possessive
"possessive individualism" central
centtal to Western capitalism do not explain the popularity of the idea or why his theories of rights
and property are referenced but his views of religion are as often as not ignored. 9
Stewart Brand's ideas from the 1960S were indeed carried into the cyberculture
in the 1980s and 1990S, bur
but that does not explain why that importation was successful or why some aspects of his work gOt
got :menrion
attention in the 1960S (for example,
environmentalism,
envitonmentalism, a distaste for the singular pursuit of wealth) and orhers
others in the
1990S (for example, computer technologies and a libertarian
liberrarian inclination cowards
towards
markets). There are ,ases
cases where famous authors in the field of computing someSOnle4

Introduction

times changed their minds or said things that

rhat in retrospect seem incoherent or
irrelevant. Similarly, drawing broad conclusions about society at large from films,
novels, and advertisements risks assuming coo
toO mu,h.
much. Does Apple's 1984 TV ad
for the Macincosh
Macintosh computer, broadcast nationally
narionally only once, tell us about the culture at large in the 1980s, or just about a small subset of that culturd
A CentUry's
century's worrb
wOHh of scholarship in the sociology of knowledge suggests a
few principles for understanding the place of ideas in sodallife.
social life. First, ideas do
nOt exist as isolated bits that can be picked up and discarded separately. Rather,
they live and die inso(,r as they are sustained by their place in broad patterns
patrerns
of thought, in paradigms, in systems of value and belief that provide general
visions of the world. (The main limitation of Richard Dawkin's popular notion
of "memes" is precisely that it treats ideas as singular bits, as if they existed
aucollomously
autonomously from larger systems of thougllL)'"
rhoughL)' \Vhen
'When digital pioneer Douglas
Engelbart first proposed in the 1960S that computers might be controlled interactively by a keyboard and a mouse through a windowing intcrfa<:e,
interface, this was not
JUSt the invention of a few devices. Engelban
Engelbart was a key figure in a movement that
was considering a completely different picture of what computers were about. It
was a vision of how computers could be distributed communication cools-that
tools-that
is, something much like we understand them today-instead of the 1960S notion
of computers as centtalized and centralizing calculation and management devices.
Engelbart presented
ptesented an alternative
alternarive worldview of computing. a different system of
thought,
thoughr, of which the mouse and overlapping windows were simply expressions.
If you only look at the mouse or the interme
interface in isolation, you miss tbe
the underlying vision that made them possible.
Second, ideas emerge within
wirhin communities. There :lre
:tre unique individuals who
make important contributions, but those contributions generally grow out of, and
are nurtured within,
wirhin, communities that share a system of thought or Inquiry.
inquiry. Isaac
Newton discovered calculus, but it is hardly a coincidence that Leibniz came
up with the same ideas at roughly the same time."
rime." Engelbart's ideas would have
gOlle
gone nowhere without a community of the like-minded, or at least the receptive,
around him. Hence, the first thing to look for is shifts in the shared broad patterns,
rerns, in what is in the air at a given time. And the principal objects of analysis are
communities who share ideas, knowledge, methods, and habits of thought and
talk. Individuals' acrions are most
mOst important
impoHant when they express the character of
and changes within broader systems of thought.
Third, ideas inevitably exist in relations to social structures-complex rclarelations, co
to be sure, but nevet
never completely autonomously. Ideas need living sustenance, that is, communities of people with resources and institutional relations
rclations
that enable them co
to actively propagate and maintain themselves. A theology
needs a church and a community of believers; a new approach co
ro computer
5

Inrroduction
Inrroducrion

use
usc re<juires
requires a source of funding and an institutional
instirutional home. Bur rhese
these conne<:connections are
arc rarely fonnul.aic.
fonnulaic. In the history of the internet, for every visionary like
t11ere arc other inlporr:mt
important ngures
ligures with no explicir
explicit gr:md
gr.md vision, politiEngelbart there
cal or otherwise. Andries Van Dam, for example,
example, sometimes credited as one
onc of
the three pioneers of hypertext, is a modest
modcst college professor
professor and research.er
researcher
who approached computer
computet programming
progtamming with a spirit of cheerful professional
crafTsmanship
craftsmanship rather rhan
than visionary ardor. \A/hile
\Vhile others prognosticated,
prognrn;tica.ted, he built
importantly, taught generations of students
studentS about
working programs and. most importantly,
new possibilities
possibilities for using computers, many of whom
whom went on to
to key places in
the industry. Beyond an enthusiasm for
for promoting computers as communication devices,
devices, his efforts show
show few ovett
overt signs of inAuence
inAuence from cultural
cultur.ll trends
trends or
from politics.
So
So the faCT
fact that some computer scientists sported
sporred long hair
hair or wore antiwar
:lntiwar
pins as rhey
does not
make
it
inherently
counterculrural,
they built
buill the
the internet
internet docs
not m:akc
countercultural, just as
as
the faa
fact thar
that rheir
their funding was largely
largely frOlll
from the military does not
not by itself
itSelf make
it a war machine. It
Ir is
is rare that systems of thought can
can be simply linked to
to broad
brO:ld
social srrucTUres
strnctures in mechanical, one-to-one
one-tO-One fashion." What priests
pricsts tell their
parishioners about birth control or diVOrce
divorce may be olle
Olle thing. but what the community actually does may be another.
another, TI,e
The same may be
be said about
about an engineer's
gr.ant
gram proposal that talb
talks about
about using computers for military research, while his
graduate studems
students write protocols for email distriburion
distribution lists that get used to
gr.adu.au:
discuss politics and
and science nction
Iiction novels. To say that institutions support ideas,
therefore, is nOt
not to :lssume
assume the existence of a dean, unbreakable link between offivalence of the machines that get built.
cial beliefs
bdiefs and the political valence
mesSy atea
area of connections
This messy
conneCtiOILS between systems of thought and institutions
will See,
rraction, nor
remains a2 challenge. As
As we will
sec, new ideas
idns ofren
ohen gain
goain traction,
not just
JUSt because
beause
of an
experiences: the coman encounter with a big theory, but with small,
sma1l, everyd:lY
everyday experiences;
pulsive
pulsive draw
draw that
thOlt often
ohen comes wirh
with computer use,
use, for eX:lmple,
example, or the repeated
wonder of plugging in
in :la new gi:l:lTIO
gi:z;mo that a2 shorr
short time ago would
would have
hOlvc been imposdissibly expensive
apcnsive or
or just
JUSt impossible,
impossible, or rhe
the cubicle
cubicle dweller's
dweller's secret
SCC.tct pleasure
plnsure of
of dacovering. on a2 slow
slow day
day at work,
work, something striking on computer networks that
th.ar
is unknown
unknown to the powers that
that be. Systems of
of thought often
ohen work at the
the level
of [.acit
tacit habits of
of talk
talk and
and action
action rather than
than explicit belief
bdief systems
systems and become
become
visible through the .accumulation
accumulation of decisions over
over time. Outside
Outside the graduate
gradu:ate
seminar or the hard sciences.
sciences, at leasr,
least, changes in Systems
syStems of thought seem to
to be
as much about
about h.abits
habits of the heart
hean as
as habits of the mind. (The notion of "memes"
may remain compelling in popular usage because, with its emphasis on things
things
bU:Z;2;words :lnd
and slogans, it loosely captures
captutes the informal dynamic by which
which
like bu;:;:words
new ideas catch on: by slogans, passions, and implicit, culturally specific
specilic forms
of "common
Wcommon sense,"
sense,~ as much as by rational axioms, evidence, principles, and doc6

Introduction

trines.) Sometimes it
ir is more important that an idea
idea be
be thrilling than
than itit be logically
c.ally compelling.
extent that this book offers a generaliz.able
generali%able method, it is to taclcle
To the extent
tadcle rhis
this
microstruCUIral
microstructural problem of the interplay of ideas and illstitutions
institutions by looking at
connections among three levels:
leveIs: (I) shared felt experiences associated with
with technologies; (1)
nologics;
(2.) culrural
cultural traditions thar
that people draw on to
to make sense of those expe
experiences; and (3) articularions
OlrticuiatioILS between those linked
linked traditions and experiences
with
with political ideas,
ideas, particularly
particulady political ideas that shape policymaking around
internet structure.
srrucrure.
book I found
People dlink
found that
thOlt
think with
with texts and theories, but in working on this book
they
thC)' :ilso
also think
think with
with objects and
and institutions. Whether
\Vhethet or nor
not computers
computers themselves
selves think,
think. they ate
are things
things that people
people think with, things that
that inspire
inspire us to think
about our selves
sel\cs and
and our relations to others. Big ide:u,
ideas, like
like a revived
revived belief
belief in the
enthusiasm
for
digital
democracY_:lre
sometimes
brought
justice of markets or:1ll
or an
democracy, are
brought
in (0
to help individuals account
:account for and connen
connect their evuyday
everyday experiences with
machines
m:achines to life as
:IS a whole rather than the other way around. Intellectual
Inrellecrual trends
thus can
can gain
g:lin tr:lction
traction surting
starring at the level of everyday experience and only then
drawing frOl1l
from more formally structured statements
StatementS of principle. This book looks
for rhe
the philosophy, then, not just in fully articulated
:lrti.:ulated theories, but
bur a[
:l.t how ideas
and
and everyd:ay
evetydi:ly experiences of life in
in general and computers interact. Keeping an
eye on how things might have felt from the bottom up, I found, sometimes better
explained
explained the
rhe success
Succcss of writers' ideas [han
than did the lives or worb
works of the writers
themselves.
themsekes.

Effecrs:
Effects: The Net Effect Is in the Making of It
But
Bur how.
how, when working from
from the bottom up, can
an one sort
SOrt out
out the signinc:lnt
signilicant from
the trivial:'
trivial~ Is there any
any connection
connection at
:1( all, for
for example,
example, between
between the internet and
the
the cold war military visions that underwrore
underwrote rhe
the internet's early
carly development
Or
between
the
internet
and
the
uropian
and
and the technology?
tcchnology~
:md
utopian democratic
demOCr.ltic claims
many internet pioneers?
pioneers~
made by many
Instead of
of working &om
from texts (0
to zeitgeists,
zeitgeisrs. I looked for ocCllsions
occasions where cultural trends made a m:lterial
matetial difference. The book loob
looks at instances
inst:mccs where people
associated
draw on various cultural systems [0
to make sense of common
common feelings :U$ociated
play roles
rolcs in formal
form:ll and
with computers and then how those acts of making sense play
informal policy making. [I looked for cases, in orher
other words, where the
the intersecto actually shape
shapt policy
tions of intellectual frameworks and feelings can be seen ro
decisions influencing
inRuencing the construction of the internet and its social instantiation,
cues
cases wnere
wnert changes in polieym.ak:ing
policymaking occurred rhar
that cannot be otherwise entirely
accounted for."
for."
7

Introduction

As I worked on this book, people would often assume a book called 1J,r
7JJt Nl.'t
Ntt
Effi'Cf
Effect was studying the tffect
effect of the inrerntt
internet on people-on children. perhaps,
or
Ot education, families, or nations. That is not exactly
exacdy the question here. On the
one hand.
(0 tell what
whar the imernet's
incernet's effects are. True social
hand, it is simply tOO soon to
change is long alld
and deep, taking place over
ovet decades or centuries. Scholars are sti!l
debating. quite thoughtfully, the effect of the printed
princed book on humm
human civilization
civilizadon
several centuries after its
irs Widespread adoption. The full effect of the century-old
telephone remains something of a sociologial
sociological mYStery.
mystery. Gauging the social effeclS
effecu
of a brand neW
new technology like the
rhe internet-as of this writing.. bately
barely more than
a decade old as a consumer item, still changing almost monthly
monchly in its character
bound ro
and reach-is bound
(0 be largely an e"ercise
exercise in guesswork and sloganeering.
On the other hand, there's
rhere's a quesrion
question of what one means by
by effects. Sociolo500010gists and
and histOtbns
gisu
historians of
of technology
rechnology are quick to
to tell
rell us to be wary of overly simple
fornlS
fOrms of technological
technologica.l determinism, in which a technology like television Ot
or the
sky
internet is imagined as if it wete
were e"terior
exterior ro
to society, as if it dropped nom the sky
fully
and then exerted
exened effects
effectS on that society from
nom the outside. Technolofiilly formed and
and shaped
are socially constructed."TIley
constructed." They are deeply
deeply embedded in and
sh:lped
gies, it is said, arc
by soci:ll
social processes and choices and so should nor
not be thought of
of as something
parricularly true of
outside of or
or autonomous from
from sociery.
society. This is particularly
of the internet.
incemet.
The choices that
into computet
purely technologica.l;
technological; the same
mat go into
computer design
design are
:Ire not
not purely
Ot power
microprocessor, for example,
power
example, can guide
guide a missile, run a word processor, or
a home game
and which of these gets implemented is at least to
to a large
game console,
console, and
degrce
computers sometimes have
ifcomputers
have unintended concondtgree a social choice.'l
choice." (And even if
scquences,
e\'Cn if
if they surprise us,
us, that surptisc
surprise may be more about us
US than it
sequences, even
is about anything
anything inherent ro
to the machines; consider
wnsider the unexpected popularity
popularity
of email in the early days of
of computer networking.) Comemporary
Contemporary computing..
is in an important
therefore,
imponant way
way the product
product of a gradual
gradual accumulation of social
therefOte. is
:tnd
and cultural
culrural choices,
choices. choices among compefing
wmpeting visions
visions of computers' purposes
and social capacities. These
These choices,
choices. in turn,
rum, typically rest on those collections
collections of
tacit assumptions that power
powet social
social relations-assumptions about
about social
social hierarhieratchy, for example, or constructions
wnstruetions of self. As Donna
Donna Hanway
Haraway once pUt
put it, techMfrozen moments
momencs of the Ruid
fluid social intencrions
internctions constituting them.""
them.....
nologies are "frozen
nologics
To the e"tent
extenc that this is rrue,
true, then the intere.~ting
interesting question is not,
nor, what is the
effecr
incernet on society? but,
bur. how has the internet been socially coneffect of the internet
srructed
of cOnstruction
construction played
played in society?'?
society?'1 'W'hat
What
sttucted and what role has that
thar process of
did we learn from
nom the way the internet was built, from the
rhe unique way that it
appc3red
brO:ld public consciousness?
appeated and C31llC
came into broad
than;la
Social cOllstructionism,
consrructionism, however,
howevcr, is more a way of framing the problem than
solution to it. To the e"tent
extenr that computers are
arc simply, as Sherry TurkJe's
Turkle's early work
suggests, a Rouch:lth
Rorschach blot onro
onto which we project our dreams and understandings,
8

Introduction
Introducrion

one can
call safely
safely discount the
the specifics ofthe
oftbe technology andjust focus 011
on how people
imagine
it." TIle
has been
im:lgine it.'l
The internet, certainly, has
been frequently looked at through the
rhe lens
ofvarious lltopi3S
utopias and
and described alternately as, say. the embodiment ofthe
ofrhe competcomperitivc
communiurian cooperation. Such claims
itive free m3rket
marker or the ernbodiment
embodiment of communit:lrian
are interesting..
interesting, but
bur in the
the first
hrst instance they generally tell us more
mote about
abour the political orientation oftheclaimanrs
ofthe claimants than they do about the internet.
But, on
011 another level, the internet, more obviously
obviously than many other technologies, has been and continues to be a gradual.
The way
gradual, collective work
wotk in progress. 111e
itir is built and org.ani:zed
organized is inseparable from the way its builders imagine it, even if
they do imagine it pntially
(and, analytipattially or inaccurately. So the more important {and,
cally,
COllly, more difficult}
difficult) question is, how have various shared visions, even the inacinterner~ How have they shaped its
shaped policymaking around
around the internet?
curate ones. shaped
lifer How have culmre
construction and,
sociallife~
culture
and. therefore, i[5
its character, its role in social
is~
interacted to
ro make the internet
interner whar
and policy interacted
what it is?
This is the principal
principal methodological question
question that drives
dri\'es this book. As I
TIlis
personal
approached the massive,
massive, spra.wling
sprawling tangle of technical information, personal
up the hislOry
have
narratives, and political
that make up
history of the internet, I have
politica.l events lIlat
Out instances in
which culture pla>'Cd
pla.yed :1a key role
role in
and
in which
in broad policy
policy and
sought OUt
internet has figured
figured in
design chaires.
design
choices. 111c
The intern
in many ways in culture-in movies, for
example,
dating habits, even
in religion-bur
religion-but I have pursued those
example. or novels, or daring
even in
instances
m.:lde a:I difference
difference in the cOnstruction
construction
inst:mces where culmre
culture has demonstrably made
of
internet itself. TIl
is book's approach to rhe
of rhe
the intern
This
the question of causality,
causalif)', then, isis to
to
process of
undetStand
understand tht
the internet not as a thing
thing that has an effect but as itself:l
itself:ll process
soci:ll
is in the making of it."
social construction.
constTuction. TI1C
The Ilet
net cffect
effect is
Culture, Selves.
Seh'cs, Power
Who arc
are }"OU
rQU when, on an
an ordinary
ordinary day, }"Ou
you sit dOWll
down to use a computer?
computer? Arc
Are you
a citizen? A consumer?
consumer~ A manager? A ttchnici:lll?
technician? An :trtist?
artist~ Arc
Are you looking
looking for
for
the familiar, or are you hoping to be surprised? Arc
Are you
you trying ro
to reaffion
reaffirm who
you are, your sense of self? Ot
Or are you perhaps hoping to break out of your rouexperience something
something different.
different, a better self?
tine, to cx~rience
11lis
that the different answeu
answers to these questions
questions offered by
This book suggeSts
suggests that
culture, that is, shifting varieties of learned self-understanding or selfhood, have
m.:l.de a difference in the development of the
rhe internet and that the ways this has
made
happened tells
rells us something abom
about the
rhe character of modern life. Multiple forms
of seIf-ullderst:lllding
self-undetstanding :ue
are at play at
ar anyone time:
time; in the
rhe last half-centuty
half-century in the
United States; for exarnple,
example, utilitarian and managerial constructs
constructs of the self have
played
at the role of the romantic self, where the self is
, :Ia key role. But 1[ also look :u
understood :IS
as the source of a dynamic, inner experience that
rhat calls on us to
ro live
9

Introduction

Ctc~tively beyond the bounds of predictable rationality. We ate

creatively
are romantics even,
even.
face
of
high
technologies.
and
perhaps
especially,
in
rhe
:md
especially. the
From Locke thtough
through Butckhardt
Burckhardt to Tocqueville to ponmodernism,
postmooernism. rhe
the quesrheme. In panicular,
tion of how societies imagine the self is a recurring
rerorring theme.
particular. the traditional history of ideas teaches the impon:mce
t~e
importance and deep complexities of the
historic:al evolution of what Ian Wart
W:1tt called
caJled "th:at
~that vast
vaSt complex of interdepenimerd~n
historical
dent
f:actors denoted by the U:t11l
'individualism-'o and what poststructuralists
posrstrucruralisu
dem factors
term 'individualism-"
waS the study of the process
suggested was
ptocess of the I in history. Thc
The idea here is not
that the
not that ~societ{
[hat
me self is an illusion, nor
~sociery- mechanic.ally
mechanically detetmines
determines our identities, nor that
mat the ~lf
self has
h:u suddenly become. in the postmodern
postmooem era, infinitely
malleable.
maJIeable. Rather,
Rather. as Christina Dunbar-Hester has argued. ~the
"the benefit of using
parts of human experience that are moving
[the category of identity] is to get at paru
yet'real.
cOnstructed, and yet'real......
targets, slippery, constructed,
To get at the "slippery.
subjectivity, rI find
~slippery. constructed, yet
yer real" dlaracter
character of subjectivity.
Frow. who has written
writren of"rhe
of~the imaginary forms of selfsclfit useful to follow John Frow,
experience rhe
the world and our
Ollr relation to it:'"
it." Forms of
hood through which we e~perience
selfhood, in this sense, arc
are forms,
fonns, nor
not types of individuals. They are discursive
pattems
institutions and historical
hisrorical processes that become available
available
patterns embedded in insritmions
co
sense of who they arc
are in
in given contexts. One
to illdividuals
individuals as ways of making sense
never simply ij a utilirari:1rl
utilitarian or
Ot rOlllantic
romamic or genderI'd
gendered self. Rather.
Rather, most of us find
find
ir
it necessary
neccssary or useful
useful to adopr
adopt roles, to think
think and speak
spe:Ut of ourselves in
in various
established ways,
to think of ourways. at various
various moments
momems in
in our lives. We often have to
selves,
selves. for
for example.
example, ;\$
as alternately passionate
passion2te and as administrators,
administrators. one moment
moment
as
as caring
caring parents
parents or
or partners
partners and the
the next as self-interested
self-interested rational
rational actors
actors in
in a
marketplace and
~Imaginary
and after
after that
th2t as competent professionals
pro&ssionals with resumes. "Imaginary
forms
forms of selfhood:
selfhood.~then.
then. are
2re neither
neither fixed
fixed identities
identities nor
nor complete or
or determinate
detuminate
in
in some kind
kind of mechanical
mechanicaJ way. They are plural and
and RUid,
Auid. bur
but not
not infinitely so;
so:
there
there are typically
rypically several
several forms
forms available
available to any
any given
given individual in
in any
any given
given concontext,
possible, and
and probably
probabl}' sometimes
sometimes necessary.
neces.s.ary, to
to move among
among them."
them.J
text, and it isis possible,
the
tensions
inherent
in
this
situation
in
our
own
We
all
regularly
negotiate
Vole all regularly negotiate the tensions inherent in
sirua.tion in
own ways.
ways.
of
course. but the
social process and
ofcourse.
the contingencies
contingencies of
ofsocial
2nd history
history provide
provide us
us a shif1:ing
shifting
set
of available
avail:.tble strategies
straregies for
for accomplishing
accomplishing that
th2t negotiation."
negotiation.'
set of
Are there
there particular
particular forms
foons of
of selfhood
selfhood associated with
with computing~
wmputing! There
There cercerand
Wiml
containly
has
been
speculation
along
those
lines.
Software
engineer
tainly has been speculation along those lines. Software engineer
Wired contributor
tributor Ellen
Ellen Ullm:m,
Ullman, for
fot example,
example. has
has written
written evocatively
evocatively about
about what
what she
she calls
calls
"a
"a male
male sort
sort of
of loneliness
londiness that
th.at adheres
.adheres in
in programming."
programming." Yet
Yet she
she hints
hints at
at the
the laylay"Fifteen years
ers
of complexity
complexity in
in rhe
the phenomenon
phenomenon when
when she
she quips,
quips."Fifteen
years of
of programprogr.amers of
ming,
ming.. and
and I've
I've finally
finally learned
le3rned to
to rake
take my
my loneliness
londiness like
like a2 man:'"
man...
One
One of
of rhe
the problems
problems with
with some
some of
of the
the original
origin.al work
work on
on the
the history
history of
of indiindividualism
vidualism was
was aa tendency
tendency to
to imagine
im.agine aa sil\gular,
singular, European
European or
or Western
Western sel
self, as
as if
if
m

"

rear

10

Introduction

everyone in a given time and place experiences rhe world in the same way. Rheto<:onric about the spread of the internet .and
and computing frequently echoes [his
this conccit when it spe:aks
terrns- "everyone~ is on [he
the internet. using em2i1.
email,
ceit
speaks in universal termsusing Facebook.
Facebook, and so on-in a way that systematically ignores cultural and
>6 For example,
example. the
economic barriers to .access
access and differences in use.
usc."
tbe percentage of women entering the fields of computer science has
h2s always been small and,
and.
h:u actually declined in the
rhe last
l:l$t decade. Because this
to some reports. has
according ro
profe.ssions has
has occurred at a time when women's participation in many other professions
mill; of cultural.
cuirural, institutional.
institurional, and
been going up. most attribute
anribute this pattern
parrern to
ro a mi~
economic barriers."
barriers."
we. in
inherem in the rradirion
tradition of a singular we,
In response to the blindness inherent
self. there is now an established
the assertion of a unified and universal sense of self,
sec of critiques. From W. g.
E. B. Ou
Du Bois's 11,t
Thr Souls oj BllICk
Black folk
Folk. through the
set
feminist writings of the 1970S through the Iireratures
literatures of culrural
cultural studies today,
today.
d!fftmu forms of sdfhood
selfhood experienced by difon the differwr
the emphasis has been on
dominant groups' tendenferem groups.
groups, and the problems and pain caused
caused by dominanr
ferenl
the only experiences. (It is
own experiences
eKperiences of selfhood as rhe
cies to imagine their own
not always wrong to speak of a we in generab
general: :l1ld
when 1I do so. sometimes it
nor
and when
and the reader and
and sometimes it speaks of
of the shared fmure
future of
signifies myself and
humanity.'"
humanity., But,
Bur, in the end,
end. there is no
no everyone on
011 the internet,
intetnet,just
JUSt as
as there
thete
is no single type of
of Western individual. and the
the tendency
tendency to
to speak
speak as if
if there is,
is.
the
the tendency to speak
spe:ak of a we th:lt
that encompasses
encompa.sses everyone,
everyone, is both
both inaccur:lte
inaccurate and
potentially manipulative.
manipulative.
Yet the response
response (;InnOt
cannot be
be only to
to say
say that
that everyone's
everyone's experience is different
different
or
Ot ro
to assert
assert other
other identities against.
against. say,
say. a white
white male
male identity.
identity. When
\hen Ullman
Ullman
~rhe male sort
sort of
of loneliness that
mat inheres in progr:lmming.~
progranuning." she is
is both
both
describes "the
describes
of experience our
our culture
culture associates with .ta
pointing ro
to a genet:llizable
generalizable pattern
parrern of
pointing
type
of masculinity
masculinity and
and allowing
aJIowing how.
how. as
as a woman,
woman, she
she c.tn
can share in
in that
that e~peri
experitype of
of programming.
programming. she
she can
can take
t:ake her
her loneliness
loneliness like.t
like a mall.
man.
ence: .tfter
after fifteen
fifteen years
years of
ence;
is
associated
with.
but
not
necessarily
bound
to.
masculinity.
and
The
experience
The e~perience is associated with. but not necessarily bound to, masculinity. and
the
how that
thar association
a.ssooation has
has been
been historically
historically comtructed.
constructed.
the question
qucstion isis hal\'
of giving
giving voice
voice to
ro
Culrun.l studies'
studies' project was
was never
ne\'er simply
simply the
the liberal
liberal one
one of
Culrural
or of
of assening
asserting one
one kind
kind of
of experience mechanically
mechanically tied
tied to
to aa social
social
the voiceless
voiceless or
the
of how
how voices
voices are
are established
established in
in the
the
grouping agJIinSt
against another;
another; irit was
was a rerhinking
rethinking of
grouping
Ot
first place,
place, focllsed
focused on
on how
how everyday
everyday lived
lived experience
experience intersects
inrersects with
with power
power or
first
social struggle.
Struggle. The
The "male
"male SOrt
SOrt of
of loneliness"
loneliness" associated
associated with
wirh computing
computing isis in
in the
the
social
of history
history and
and context,
context, 1I0t
not biology.
biology. Forms
Forms of
of selfhood
selfhood bear
bear the
the hishisend aa product
product of
end
of
their
times.
On
the
one
hand,
this
means
one
needs
to
carefully
torical
markers
torical markers of their timeS. On the one hand, this rlle:lns one needs to carefully
explore the
the cultural
cultural patterns
panerns of
of meaning
meaning inherited
inherited by:a
by a given
given community.
community. Most
Most of
of
explore
rhe
the people
people who
who played
played key
key roles
roles in
in developing
devdoping the
the inrerner,
internet, for
for example,
example, inherited
inherited
11
11

Introduction
Introduction

rradition ill
in which
which technological
technological mastery
mastery was
was imagined
imagined as
as inherently
inherently masculine.
masculine.
aa tradition
masTery of
of technologies
rechnologies has
has
From railroads
railroads TO
to radio,
radio, from
from automobiles
automobiles to
to VCRs,
VCRs, masTery
From
been
treaTed
as
a
sign
of
male
prowess
and
COntrol.
This
history
weighs
on
the
been treated as a sign of m3le prowess and comro!. This history weighs on the
of engineering
engineering and policymaking
policYlnaking discussed
discussed in
in this
this book
book and
and will
will be disdiscultures of
culmres
at relevam
relevant points.
points.
cussed at
cussed
Yet culmral
cultural studies
studies also
also effectively
effectively brougln
brought to the::
the discussions
discussions of
of identity
identity dod
~nd
Yet
difference
a
concern
with
the
reliltional
as
opposed
to
essential
quality
of
subjecof subjec
difference concern wiTh the rrlado,,"1 opposed essenrial
tivities. E.
E. P. TIlompson
Thompson :l.rgued
argued that
that social class-the
class-the social
social idemity
identity with
with which
tivities.
cultural studies
studies began-needs
begall-needs to be understood
understood as
as ~a
"a relationship, not
not aa thing.~"
thing."'
cultural
"an active process which owes
owes as much
much to
to agency as
as to
to conditioning
conditionillg ...
... somesome~an
which in
in f.lCt
fact happen!.~JO
happens:'JO So
So the
the focus
focus of
of this book
book is less with
with what
what catcatthing which
egOty people belong to in
in the
The fixed sense, less
less with
with thcir
their socioeconomic
socioeconomic or ethnic
ethnic
egory
and more
more with
wiTh the
the dynamics
dynamics of v:l.rious
various consrrucrions
constructions of sdfhood
sclfhood
backgrounds, and
in specific conrens.
COntexts. Cyberpundit
Cyberpulldit Esther Dyson
Dyson is a woman, bur
bUT what mattered
mattered
in
most about her 3ctivities
activities in the 1990S was her liberrarianism;
libertarianism; she
she was
was a key figure
figure
promotillg 3nd
and making acceptable the
the tendency to imagine society online as
in promoting
made up of abstract
abstraCT individ\l:lls
individuals pursuing their
their interests in a marketplace, indiindirnade
ethllic, gender, or class status did not matter.
mattet. That
viduals imagined as if their ethnic,
libertarian model of selfhood-its
sclfhood-its 3IJures
allures and its limitations-played a key role
trajectory of the internet
intemet and its reception in the early 1990S.
in the trajectory
notion of individuality is proudly abstracted from
Of course, the libertarian's nodon
differellces, and from bodies; all that is supposed not
nor to mathistory, from social differences,
ter.
Both
the
utilitarian
and
romamic
individualist
forms
of
seJfhood
selfhood rely on
rer.
romantic
creation-from-nowhere :l.Ssumptions,
assumptions, from structures of understanding that are
cre:uiOllfrom-nowhere
conditions underlying new
systematically blind to the collective and historical ,onditions
ideas,
technologies, :and
and new wealth. For histori,..!
historical and sociological reasons,
ide:l.S, new tedlllologies,
these bJinkered
blinkered structures of undersranding
understanding have come
mote easily to men than
COllle more
women, And it is ill
in v3rieries
vatieties of this gesture,
gestute, I have found, that
rhat the fonns
forms of
to women.
identity promoted by the cultures
culrures of the imernet
intemet have most obviously played a
idenrity
e);periences of computing.
computing,
U.s. society,
society. Various experiences
role in the power dynamics of U.S.
sutfing the web from a cubicle to investing in the wildly expanding stock
from surfing
matket, when coupled ro
to various politic..
political.1 discourses, have oa:asioned
occasioned a revivimarket,
fication of :In
an enthusiasm for the idea
abstracted individual in the culture
ide:a of the abstn.cted
fic:ltion
and a concomitant
faCt that
concomitanr insensitivity to social tclations
relarions and inequalities. The facr
can seem thrilling, that it aln
can feel like an escape and thus like a type of
computing ,an
States, But it is
freedom happens more often to men than women in the United States.
process of cO'lstrucring
constructing what is experienced
e);perienced as seperateness, in the promoin that prOre$$
tion and reinforcemenr
sort of 10neliness,H
toncliness,H more than the simple
reinforcement oC
of, say, "a male SOrt
statistical
dominance in computing, that the flux of identities associfaCt of male dominan'e
statistl<:al fact
ated with the inrernet
internet has mattered.
12
12

Introducrion
Introduction

Ullman's
Ullman's depiction
depiction of
of aa male
male loneliness
loneliness associ:l.ted
associated with
with programming
programming councounters
of the
the uperien,e
experience of
of computing.
computing. not
not by
by denundenunters rhe
the individualist
individualist rendition
rendition of
ci:ltion,
ciation, but
but by
by asrute
aSfUte observation.
observation. Her
Her writings
writings are
are full
full of
of people
people alone
alone at
at their
their
compurers
who feverishly
feverishly reach
reach out
out over
over rile
the wires
wires for
for upression,
expression, connection,
connection,
computers who
:affirmatiOn
affirmation while ignoring
ignoring the
the people
people around
around them-in
them-in the
the nexr
ne);t room,
room, across
across the
the
srreet,
street, in
in their
their city.
city, Ullman's
Ullman's work
work in
in general,
general, fictional
fictional and
and non-,
non-, uses
uses aa novelist's
novelist's
attention
attention to
to hum:l.n
human detail
detail ro
to tease our
our the
the inner f:lbric!
fabrics of
of the
the experience
experience of
of comcomputing.
puting, those
those patternS
paTterns of
of grandiosity,
grandiosity, obsession,
obsession, and
and discovery
discovery intertwined
intertwined with
with
momentS
of missed hurl,an
human conllcction
connection characteristic
characteristic of
of the
the last three
three decades
decades of
moments of
the computing culture in
in the
the United
United States."
States."
the
TI,:lt
That male
male sort
SOrt of loneliness,
loneliness, theil,
then, is of
of a piece with
with the
the f:lcr
fact th:.\[
that our
our culture
culrure
has
has imagined perroll:ll
personal autonomy
autonomy to
to various degrees
degree.~ in terms
terms of
of the
the model of
of the
historic power of
of men over
over women, in
in terms of the power
powet to command,
command, to walk
out
our the
rhe door,
door, to
to deny
deny the work
work of nurturing
nurturing and the
the material
material f:lct
faCt of
of interdependence. It is this habit of understanding freedom negatively,
negatively; blindly, as freedom
from goverlllllent,
government, freedom from
from dependency, freedom from others, that helps Set
set
the
the conditions for the popularity
populariry of the rights-based free m3rket.
market. But,
Blit, this book
suggests, the same s[tuct\ltes
structures of self-understanding also set the conditions for
for the
rOIll:lntic longing for
wnstructed
consrructed senSe
sense of 3a l:lck,
lack, a felt absence, that can turn into tomantic
some unknown or unachiev:lble
unachievable otl1er.ln
other. In that longing may lie seeds to change.

The Chapters
Many of the
rile collective technological decisions that have
h:lVe constructed the internet
h;lVe been gradual and are still underway. TIle
have
The discussion of them, therefore, is in
various ways woven throughout the book. But each chapter centers on a particumoices and associated visions. Shared visions tend to evolve gradually
lar set of choices
between communities, without sharp boundaries in either time or space, so while
arc organized toughly
chtonologically, there is some overlap, and
the chapters are
roughly chronologically,
some simultaneous evems
events appear in different chapters,
Chapter 1I sets the stage for
fot the rest of the book by introducing se\'eral
several key
concepts while exploring the eatly
COntextS that set in
culmnl and institutional conrexts
Concepts
early cultural
motion
research and institutional support
morion the reseatch
suPPOrt leading to the creation of the
rhe interoriginet. Starting around 1960, it looks at the beginnings of the shift from the origi
nal vision of compurers
computers as c:l.lculatillg
calculating machines, in a category with slide rules,
towards the idea thar
that they might he
be communication devices, in a category with
books, writing. and the telegraph,
lllis conceptual change was crucial
nucial to the shift
telegraph. This
from centralized, batch-processed computers to the interactive, de'entralized
decentralized
Computers
computers of today. At st3ke
stake in these differences are competing visions of the
,haracter
character of human ruson,
reason, particularly the problem of relating means to ends.
13

Inrroduction
Introduction

cre:uing sofrware
srructures of reward and induscreating
software and using computers and
:md the structures
sofrware; rhe
the same romantirotnantitrial organization that emerged from commodified software;
the decade was now marshaled
.:ism that had fueled free marker visions earlier in rhe
dsm
against them.
111(
sumtnari"es rhe
the larger point ro
to be learned from the previous
The conclusion summarizes
our
embrace,
use,
and
continued
development
beil\
chapters:
use.:md
de\"dopment of the internet has bein.
chaprers:
imernet is a
shaped by our experience of how it emerged. The openness of the inrernet
it developed.
developed, nor
not something inherent in me
the
product of the peculiar way in which ir
the inrernet's
internet's history, as a result.
result, is inscribed in its pracrical
practical charactet
character
technology; me
tedmology;
served as a socially evoeati\'e
evocative object for millions and crecre
and use_
use. The internet has seryed
:tted a context in which an ongoing exploration of the
(he mnning
meaning of core principles
ared
pro perry. freedom.
freedom, capitalism.
capitalism, and the
me social have been made vivid and
like rights, property.
that go well beyond the usual elite modes of discussion. It
It has
hu
debated in ways rhat
the certainties of bath market policies and
played a key role in casting into doubt rhe
democraric debate
corporate liberal ones and widened the range of possibility for democratic
and action, bringing to the surface
sur&ce polirical
political issues that have been donuant
dorm:\1lt since
States. Bur this effiorescence of openness is nor
not
Progrcssive Era in the
dle United Srates.
the Progressive
[(uths about technology (or about
abour progress or humanity)
the result of underlying truths
breaking through the crusts of tradition and inequality. It is the result of pecuTIle role of romanticism
romanricism in particular reveals, not
and culture. The
liarities of history :md
universal truth, but
bur rhe
the historical
historiul contingencies at work
wOtk in rhe
the creation
crearion of bath
a unh'ersal
technology and democracy.
democt:lcy. As a practical matter,
maner, a new politics of internet policy
making in the United Srares
States would be wise to take that history into account and
Start from the widely felr
felt tensions between romantic and utilitarian individualsun
towards a richer.
richer, more mature approach towards democratic
clemoet:ltie deciism and move mwatds
sion making.

16

Introduction

"Self-Motivating
"SelfMotivating Exhilaration"
Cui rural Sources or
CompUter Communication
On the Culrural
of Computer

'n,ere is
i. a feeling of fCMWrd
renewed !>opt:
hope in me
the air duf
that rh.r
the public infen$\"
interest will find a way
ThUt
rhe dision
decision processes
proces~s dur
rim sh:ape
shape lhe
du,' furore.
future....
Ir is a feeling one
of dominating lhe
... It
'nle infomurion
information revol.ution
rel'<,llUlion is bringing with it a key
at me
rhe con5Ok.
collllole. The
experiences al
dIat nuy
may open rhe
the dOOl"
door to a new era of invo!.\nnmr
inl''Oh~ment and p.1.map.nion.
participation. The key is
dur
effective: inrcnrnon
interaction wim
self motivating uhilaration
exhilaralion lhar
u:companies truly
mzly dfrcrive
me sdf-moriv:lting
rtur accompmi~
good. coruolc
nlllsole rotInecled
connected rhl'Ollgh
through a goocI
good
infonnarion
Ihrough a goocI
inlOrnurion and knowledge through
neN'ork to.:l.
to.a goocI
good computer.
ner",ork
tomputer.
-imerner pioneer Joseph Liclc.lider
Licklider'
-interner

Introduction
the internet.
inrernet, when ARPA
In a now-legendary mOment
moment in the history of rhe
ProjeCtS Agency) Director Jack P. Ruina was searching for
(Advanced Research ProjectS
oversee the Department of Defense's research efforts
someone to o\ersee
cffons in comput196z, he turned to J.
Ruina said Licklider ~used
"used to rell
tell me
R. Licklider. Ruiru
ing in 1961,
to spend a lot of time at
ar a computer console.
console....
how he liked ro
... He said he would
it and become son
sort of
or addicted.~
addicted:' Today.
Today, in rhe
the e.nly
early lWenry-first
rwemy-first
get hung up on ir
that peculiar feeling of interacting wim
with compurers
COmputerS is familiar
&miliar [Q
to milCentury, mar
century,
compUter garnes,
games, web surfing. or acrua.I
acrual programming.
lions; whether
whethet through computer
have experienced versions of the compulsive absorption,
people across the globe havc
~addiction; thar
(hat can sometimes come wim
with computing. Hit some keys,
the ~addicrion;
keys. gee
get a
me
:.Igaill, again, again. The
-rhe litde
little responses the
response, hit again, another response, again.
offers~some numbers, an error message.
m~sage, an image, :la sound-do
5Ound~do nor
not
COmputer offers-some
COmpurer
tesolve things. Rarhet,
Rather, they are
arc just
jusr enough to invite rhe
the user to
ro try :Again,
again, ever in
resolve
ir right, of finding whar's
what's next.
hope, in :mticipation
anticipation ofgetting
of getting it
hope.
acruIn the early 1960s, however, only a handful of people in the world had actuintetacting with a computer;
few, and
computer: computers were few.
ally had the experience of inreracting
interactioll through a kcyboatd
keyboard and
only a small fraction of them allowed direct interacrion
Much
of
Licklider's
uniqueness
C:.lme
from
the
f.tcr
r11:.lt,
among
screen.
Screen.
came
faCt that, amollg the very
few who had directly experienced an interactive computer, he saw this ~holding
"holding
power"1 as a potentially positive force; he eventually called it "the
"rill:: self-moth'atsdf-motivat.
power"l

c.

'7

c:xhil:l.r.ltion rhat
thar accompanies
effective interaction
inter.lcrion with inform;uion
ing exhilaration
accomp:mies truly effectivc
infotmation
through a:l. good console and
and:l.a good network compuu:r"'
computer~' and f.unously
f.tmously proposcd
proposed
th:u it would e\entually
eventually lead to more effective and n.tional
rational human behaviors. As
that
ARPA's computing projeCt
project for most of the 1960s,
to
1960s. Licklider went on to
head of ARPAS
laid the foundation for the interneL
internet.
fund much of the research that I:lid
generated by the interaction of embodied pheFelt e:qx-rience.
experience, as a rule, is gener.ned
conte1l'ts. Ingesting peyote buttons.
buttons, for example, can be
culmral COntexts.
nomena with rulrunJ
entertainment :rnd
and by
collcge students as a form of entenainment
experienced by American college
N ...tive AmeriGln
American shamans as a connection with the ancestors.
:Illcestors. A
Southwestern Native
m:l.Y experience the physical exhaustion of
Of:lll
mountain climber may
an arduous and lifethreatening climb as supremely exhilarating; a war
w:lr refugee fleeing her homeland
darkest despair.
similar stress as a feeling of the datkest
might experience physiologically simil:u
The same is true of the compulsive experience of interacting with a computer.
contexts, in the equivalents of sham:lnistic
shamaniStiC rituals
ritu:lls or
Computers exist in cultural COntexts,
Compurers
college dorm rooms, and people give meaning to the technology accordingly.
thar computers
compurers do not have material
m:lterial effects apart from what
wlut
l1lis is not to say that
This
...bout them. In fact.
fuct, it is probably
prob:lbly the case that, economically
the culture believes about
that hum
and socially, the computers with the most impact on our lives are rhe
the ones rhat
outofsight
l:ltge institutions, calculating
calcul:uingour
away quietly out
ofsight in large
our bank statements, concalls, maintaining OUt
our payrolls, and
:lnd the like. If those computers
necting our phone calls.
suddenly disappeared.
disappeared, our economic world would collapse. Bur
But if the computers
interacr with and talk so much abom,
on our desks.
desks, the ones we directly inter:l.ct
about, suddenly
of us it arguably would be little more than an inconvenience
disappeared, for many ofus
to using telephones.
telephones, typewriters,
typewrirers, file cabinets, and photocopiers.'
photocopiers. f
to go back to
however, (sptd'llIy
For a technology to be integrated into society, howel'er.
Nptrial/y when much
activity is invisible, it has to be.
be given meanings that can relate it to
to domiof irs acti\'iry
v:llues, to everyday life, and to
to bodily experience.
experience.~ Those
lllOse often
ofren intricate
nanr social values.
nant
meanings, in tum,
turn, shape over
ovet time what the eechnology
technology becomes. Technology,
Technology. in
munings,
wotds, is necessarily mediated by culturally embedded human experience.
other words,
the interactive
interaCtive computer are
meanings associated with the str.rnge
strange draw of ehe
The munings
rhat some see it is as :Ill
an addiction
addicrion while others see it
ir as a potential
fluid. The faCt that
liberation, we shall see.
see, is JUSt
jusr the rip
tip of the iceberg in terms
tetms of
source of human Iiber:l.tion.
interaCtivity. But the fluidity of these meanings
the various readings of the feel of interactivity.
tandom. They
TIley emerge out of particular hisrorical
historical and social
soci:ll contexts.
is not random.
e1l'ploring some key moments in the e:lrly history of comThis chapeer,
chapter. while exploring
Uniled StateS,
States, introduces a number of ways of making sense of
puting in the United
contexts OUT
out of which ti,e
communicatioll have
those coneexrs
the meanings of computer communication
liberal" context of technological develbrO:ld "corporate liberar
emerged. It looks at the broad
partern of quiet cooperation between
opment in the United States, involving a:l pateern
:lround rechnological
technological issues,
issues. and traces the habit
corporations and government :Iround

insrrumemal rationality
ration:llity as a tool for org:lnizing
of insrrumental
organi:?:ing that cooperation. It then sur\.eys
me
emerging
tensiOll
between
thar
rhe thenveys the
tension
that instrumental rationality and the
ple:lsures of inreracrive
computing. in which
interactive computing,
new experience of the compulsive pleasures
tension between the
ends and means collapsed-which became expressed as a rension
computers were for addressing strictly defined problems consistent
notion that compurers
with est:lblished
established institutional
institurional gO:l1s
goals and the dawning realization that they might
mealls was
WI!J the end,
end.
be approached playfully, in a way in which the means

m:muru;

J8
18

"Self-Motiv:ldng Exhihr.lcion
Exhibration"
Self-Motivating

TTiumph of Personal
PCTsonal Freedom or
OT Strangelovian
StT3ngclovian NightmaTc?
Tightmare?
A Triumph
PTObJems in the Histodography
(nteTnet
Problems
Historiography of the Early Internet

me

me

stories, without
wirhout
One cannot say much about the past intelligibly without telling seories,
to :Ill
:U1 orherwise
othetwise inchoate mass of
putting the past
pasr into narrati\'es
narratives that give form co
purring
moreover,:lre
details. The stories told by historians, mOteQ\er,
ate rarely ifever incontrovertible;
Revolurion best firs
fits the facts.
faces.
atgumentS continue over which Story
story of the French Revolution
arguments
histoty, the storics
stories told so far are m:lrked
marked by a peculiar
Yet, in the case of internet history,
Rosenzweig has remarked,
remarked. the stories
aboUT
tension; as historian Roy Rosen:weig
seories people tell abOUT
me history of the inrernet
its militaristic
the
internet seem torn
rorn between those that focus on itS
origins in cold war institutions
institurions :lnd
and funding and the influences of the 1960s coune1l'ample, the stOry
terculture.' Take, for example,
story of Licklider. Science writer M. Mitchell
biogl'3phy, describes Licklider in warmhearted
w:ltlnhe:uted tcrms.
terms. ~Lick:
Lick,~
Waldrop, in a 2001 biography,
as Waldrop is fond of calling him, is presented as an amiable humanist and forethe internet who "provided
~provided rhe
the road map"
father of rhe
sighted engineer and leader,:l
leader. a f.ather
made computing personal....
personal."' As director of ARPAS
ARPA's comfor ~the
"the revolurion
revolution that m:lde
Hessenrially I:lid
laid our rhe
the vision and the
puring effortS,
efforts, Licklider was the man who ~essentially
puting
quarter
agenda that would animate U.S. computer research for most of the next quaner
Century, and arguably down to the present day,"'
day.~1
century,
take the version of Licklider in science historian Paul Edwards's 1997 The
Now me
Cloud World. According to Edwards, Liddider
Licklider was signifiGlnt
significant principally because,
CIoKd
:IS a key player in the military use and funding of computer research,
rese.1rch, he crys_
erysas
thoughr born of the cold war that
thar melded
talli;:ed ~cyborg
"cyborg disoourse.~
discourse," a mode of thought
talli:?:ed
ideologies~ of computer
e:lrly computer
compllter technologies with "fictions, fantasies, :lnd
and ideologies"
early
Edwnrds's telling,
telling. Licklider is not WaIWalnerworks and artificial intelligence....
intelligence.'o In Edwards's
networks
drop's amiable visionnry
dtop's
visionary that humanized computers but a cold war warrior comcentrali;:ed
sysrem devoted to a dangerous dehumani:?:ing
dehumanizing dre:lm
mitted to a system
dream of centr:lli:?:ed
:lnd complexity via
vin computeri:?:ed
cOlllpuleri;:ed control systemsmilitary control of people and
fighl'ing and winning a nuclear war. Edwards poines
points
principally for the purpose of fighting
sp:lwlled the internet-multitasking.
OUt that most of the key innovations that spawned
time-sharing. interconnection of compUlers
networks. and accessible,
time-sharing,
computers through networks,
organi%ed user interfaces through screens-came into
intera.crive, graphically organized
interactive,
19

"Self.MQovating
Exhibrarion"
"Sclf.MoriVOlring Exhilar:lrion"

II

because they lent themseh'es

themselves to
to a01. miliury
milit:lry vision of command
being only bec.auSt;
commOl.nd and
=d
control. Ed....
Edwards
quores
a
speech
by
General
Westmorebnd
in
the
aftermath
'2rds quotes 01.
Westmore.land
iliennath of
~I S,~
see,~ Wenmoreland
~an Anny
Army built into and around
around:ln
Viet Nam. I
Westmoreland proclaimed, OI.n
an
are:l control system that exploits the advanced technology of commuintegrated area
autom:ltic dOl.ta
data processing-a
and the required auromatic
nications, sensors, fire direction, ;and
system thar
rh:lt is sensitive to
to the dynamics of the ever-changing battlefield-a syssysrem
auisu the tactical
taerical commander in makillg
making sound and timely
tem that materially assists
decisions." Edwards continues,
This is ,he
language of vision and tuhnological
uropia, nOT
not practical
pr.lclial necessity.
111i5
the bnguage
technological utopia,
nc<:cssity. It
that isIS bloodless for rhe
the vicror,
remote
represents a dream of victory rhat
victOr, ofbattle
of banIe by temore
control. of lipecd
speed appr=ching
appro.lching the inttanrancou5.
instant2neOUI, and.
and ofcC'l"Qinry
of ccrt~inry in decision mal.:makoomrol,
ing
and oomrrnlnd.
comm~nd. It is aa vis.ion
vision of aa cloud
c10led world,
world, 2a chaoric
ch~otk and dangerous
d~ngeroul spxc
space
iog and
rendered orderly and.
and controllable
the poWCT$
poweT$ of t:lrioruliry
rationality and.
and tuhnology."
oontrolhble by me
technology.war urgencies, Edwards
This kind of Srrangelovian
Srr.mgdovian vision energized by cold wu
free-flowing sums of money that paid for
emphasizes, produced the vast and me-Howing
communication devices in the
much of the important research into computers OI.asS communiCOltion
important impetus for
rhe early 1970S and has remained an impon::mt
United States until the
reenergized by Presiresearch funding ro
rese:ltch
to the present day, particularly after it was reenergi<:ed
dent Ronald Reagan's "Star Vl.1rs"
Wars" project.
peculiarities sllttounding
hisrory of
Here we have one of the major peculiaricies
surrounding the early history
Hen:
the internet. One way of telling the story
Story makes it seem to
to be about the gradual
graduOl.I
decenrralized personal computing O\'Cr
over centraliud,
centralized, impersonal comtriutnph of decenttali<:ed
triumph
is a story
Story .about
about the triumph ofpersonal freedom, individual control, and
puting; it is.a
puting:
about visions of nuclear
EdwOl.rds's version finds the opposite: a Story .about
uniqueness. Edwards's
war
and
efforts
to
erase
individuality
through
centralized
command
and control.
wu
effons
1I0t about facts;
f.'IctS; both
boch authors do a solid job of getting
bere is not
The difference here
facts ur2ight.
straight. Licklider
Licklidet did ;anticipate
OI.nticipate some features of present-day comtheir f;lcts
momenu of his professional career
mOSt important momencs
puting. :Ind
and he also lived the mon
ne;ar
the
center
of
efforts
to
build
compurer systems inrended
intended to
unapologetically
computer
un;lpologetically ne:l.r
W3rs. TIle difference is in how the Story is told, in how the factS are
fight nuclear wars.
intO a nalT:ltive.
narrative. This tension or discrep=ey
discrepancy pervades narr2rives
narratives
woven together into
reflection.
about the internet; it calls for some serious reAection.
ofTechnologicaI Innovation
The Puzzle ofTechnological
Continuous technological innovation seems to be a key feature of the industrial
innovations come about in general is
world. The question of how technological innov:lr1onS
no small one, nor is it purdy inrellectual.
intellectual. Technological innovation is a key mea110
sure: of moderniZ:ltion,
achievement is an ambition of practically
moderni<::l.tion, :md
and as
OI.S such its :l.chievement
sure
every nation21
national government
governmenr and most major political theories, from Marxism to
20

Self-Motivating Exhilar.uion
Exhilaration"
"Sdf-Motivating

Reaganism. If one dismisses the simplistic extremes-for example, pure liberurlibert:nRe.aganism.

ian m:l.rkers
markets or pure centrali<:ed
centr:llized planning-the field of potential models of techdil'erse, complex, and interlaced with the pasnology development is still quite di\'C.tse,
sions of political visions. And in the history of technological change, the internet
cwdal case study,
smdy, not the least because it has called into question many of
is a crucial
the earlier received models of innovation. Like the unanticipated collapse of the
Soviet Union, the surprising success of the internet has forced us to rethink what
we thought we knew about how big changes happen.
inventions by
It remains popular, certainly in the press, to recount hisrories
histories of invenrions
of
heroic
individuals
who,
through
sheer
force
of detertelling
the
Story
in
tetms
cc:lling
terms
mination and genius, were right when everyone else gOt it wrong. School children
arc: regularly tteated
rn~ated to
ro the story of the Wtight
hrst air;l,(e
Wright brothers developing the first
Marconi the r2dio.
radio. This
plane in a bike shop, Edison inventing the light bulb, or Marroni
p1:ane
indin:l.tion ilia
also sometimes leads to a listing of"firsts;
of"firsu": Westinghouse's
Westillghouse's KDKA
inclin2cion
~first" broadcast radio sution,
st:l.tion, Paul Baran invented packet switching
was the "first"
posrnudear communications in the early 1960s,
[960S, and Marc Andreessen crectefor posmuclear
ated the first graphic:l.1
graphical web browser, Mosaic, in 1993 at the University of Illinois.
ared
internet hisrory
history is full of appealing stories of clever underdogs struggling
Indeed, incernet
against and eventually out-sm:lrting
out-smarting various hulking bureaucratic military and
tight, but there is
corporate monoliths. Licklider is intriguing enough in his own right,
corpotate
sincete politiCOlI
political ide.alism
idealiSIll of Douglas Engelbart,
also the sincere
EngdbOl.rt, credited with the mouse,
the
interfaces, and other
oeller now-f:uniliar
now-familiar features of computers. There's rhe
windowing interfOl.ces,
e;Irly ARPANET pioneers, who created
remarkable colbborative
colhborative spirit of the early
mnukab(e
n;amed RFCs-Request for Comments-which set an
tradition of the gently named
the tr2dition
developing interner
internet rechnical
technical snndards.
sund.ards.
enduring. casually democratic tone for de\'e1oping
ofTed
joyful sm:l.n-aleck
srnarr-aleck COUnterculruralism
cOl1ntereulruralism of
There's the joyfUl
Ted Nelson, who coined the
hypertext and who played a key role in populOl.ri<:ing
popularizing concepts that are now
tetm hypertat
term
lnicrocomputers and the world wide web.
embedded everywhere in microcomputers
Yet, historians of science and technology have taught us that this way of
limiutions, There are geniuses, no
recounting technological history has severe limitOl.tions.
rnore compliCOlted.
complicated. As Roben
Robert Merton
Mercon pointed
doubt, but the Story is generally more.
to O((:ur
occur to
OUt in his essay on "singletons and multiples," many innovations seem [0
It:veral different people in the same period.
period."Ii Muconi
Marconi was just one of numerous
~I
individuals who were developing radios at
at me
[he rum of the twentieth century, and
~vidual.s
Btian Davies independently published 2a proposal for packer
packet switching
switching:u
8mn
at roughly
brothets may well h:l.ve
ha.ve created the first
hrst
same time as Baran. The Wright brothers
the 5.ame
bur if they hOl.dn't,
hadn't, someone else evenmally
eventually would have." There
Working airplane, but
OUt, other radios before
befote Marconi's,
were other light bulbs before Edison's, it turns our,
Other
btoadc;Isr stOl.tions
stations before KDKA, orher
other proposals for packer
packet switching. and
other broadcast
other web browsers that predated Mosaic."
Mosaic.' A typical surch
search for the first instance
Other
21

Self-Motiv:tfing Exhilar.ition"
Exhil:tradon"Sdf-MoriV2ting

III
of a particular technology tends to uncovet
uncover a gradual evolution instead
instud of a sudden sh:lrp
appear:ulce and groups of individuals working sinlulu.neously
simultaneously rather
sharp appearance
than unique individuals working entirely alone.
alone_ Individuals do make unique and
bur they generally do so only in the
rhe context of groups, of
crucial contributions, but
comtllunides of intencting
inter;tcring individuals working on similar problems with similar
communities
[0 account
process. Seeking (0
background knowledge. Innovation, then, is a social process_
ro what they
for these patterns, historians of science and technology have pointed (0
innovatorS sharing knowledge
"invisible colleges,colleges," dispersed communities of innovators
call Minvisible
contact.'1
through journals, professional associations,
a.ssociations, and other forms of contact."
TIlt
invention is social, however, raises as many questions
The observation that
iliat in"ention
as it answers. Knowledge and new ideas Row both up and down the chain of
f:unous leader or key public.trion,
publication, there are always many
command. For every famous
bardy known individuals who an:
are quiedy
quietly working away in the backunknown or barely
consuucring machines and explorillg
ground, often actually COnstructing
exploring new uses in ways that
fact. The
'The degree to
to which Licklider
leadership comes to understand only after the bet.
metely a conduit for the ideas of others is
was a brilliant creator of new ideas or merely
determine wirh
with absolute certainty. Furthermore,
Furthermore.
difficult, perhaps impossible, to derermine
"societ( is no more a full explanation of invention rhan
than is individual genius. The
:md computer networking may have originated in a militaty
military context, for
internet and
but that docs
does not
example, bur
nOt mean those original intentions are embedded in their
chancu:r or social function.
chancter
'TIlere is a danger, furthermore,
furr!lermore, in interpreting things teleologically,
teleologically. that is, in
There
details of the past for e"ents
events th.:lt
that seem to point to the way
looking tbrough
through the det.:lils
arc in our own time, as if our current situation was foreordained. One
things are
whar
can find in Licklider's early works mentions of things that remind us of what
has h:lppened
happened since. By filtering the details of the past through the lenses of the
Stare of affairs, however, an overly dean
clean picture is painted of a linear trapresent state
sec, Licklider
jectory leading inevitably towards our current condition. As we will su,
ideas th:lt
that were prescient, but
bur others that sum
seem odd, :lnd
and his predichad some ide.:lS
h.:ld
;lnd in .:lny
any c.tse
case his principal imp.:let
impact c.tme
came
tions we
wete cert.:.tinly
certainly far short of exact, and
rhrough teaching :lnd
and the gn.nring
granting of funds, nor the
rhe actual building of equipequip
through
assume away
aW;ly the possibility that
thar things ace
are the way
ment. Teleological accountS .:lSSUme
to some degtee
degree bec.:luse
because of an accumulation of :lccidents,
accidents, that
thar current
arc to
they are
conditions need not be the product of some inelucuble
ineluctable law of history, that they
to look
arc contingent and could be different. For this reaSOll,
reason, it is impOrtallt
important also (0
are
momcnts that in retrospect
retrospeCt appear prescient,
prescienr, to roads /lot
IlOt traveled
tr~vcled
beyond the moments
and to collective mistakes.'&
mistakes.'6 History needs to look, nOt just at what people got
got wrong or merely difterenrly.
differently. TIlere
'TIlere are numerous stories
right, but what they gOt
anOlher:
of technologies developed for one purpose that ended up being used for another:
tdegr~ph and the airplane were expected ro
to end strife berween
between nations,
the telegraph
narions, Alex22

"Sdf-Motivaring
Exhilantion"
"Sdf-Motivating Exhilar.ltion"

ander Graham BeU imagined

im~gined the telephone would be used for a kind of wirebased broadcasting. and early developers of radio transmission of sound imagrhe same rime, such ch:.l.nges
changes in
ined they were creating a wireless
wirtless telephone. (At the
t~hnologies need not be proofof
proof of technological autonomy;
autonomy, as
the imagined use of technologies
though technological development occurred somehow outside social process and
purposes.)
inreractions between social COntext
conrext and
So the task is to specify the complex inten.cDons
and developmenu,
developments, the Layering
byering of social vision with
technological potentials :lnd
suggests, cerrain
certain disrechnological processes over time. Somehow, the evidence suggesu,
technological
innovations sum
seem to be in the.:.tir
the air at specific times and places, ready
coveries and innovarions
efforts of properly skilled and situated individuals. The
to emerge through the effortS
effort
whar's in the .:.tir,
air, men,
then, is an invitation to explore complexity, not
efforr to look at what's
back to
to
to reduce things to a singular social cause. And this requires taking a step bade
look at broad historical patterns of technological development.

Building Big Systems the American Way: Corporate

Liberalism and the Military-Industrial-University
Military"lndustrial-University Complex
inrernet's origin is that it was invented
as
Part of the standard folklore about the internet's
invented:ls
communiution that could withstand a massive nuclear strike because
a form of communication
system would keep functioning even if individual nodes were randomly elimithe syStem
nated. This is too simple. As some of the key individuals involved have pointed
rhe internet's heart were actually developed
OUt," the concepts and technologies at the
posmuclear survivability in mind. Yet this
with much broader applications than posrnuclear
wim
explain thedistributed~
the"distributed"
folklore persists, in part, because it is a convenient way to expl.:.tin
of
the
internet's
structure
and,
in
part,
because
there's
a
partial truth to
character
cha.racter me
parr,
to
it: one of several sources ofthe
of the concept
conccpt of computer-based packet-switched comit;
P~ul Baran on Mdistrib_
"distribnetworks was a.a series of articles published by Paul
munication neno.oorks
M
were morivated
motiv:l.ted by a
uted networks"
networks for the RAND corporation, which indeed wete
communication networks that
thar could survive:l
survive a nuclear arrack."
attack."
perceived need for communic3rion
level, the persistent myth of postnuclear surviv:lbiliry
survivability as a
Bur, on another le\e1,
But,
SOurce of the internet resonates with a deeper truth: the internet
intemet was to a large
&Duree
dtgree cteated
created by people within or funded by the U.S. Department of Defense's
Projects Agency (ARPA, with a D for DifW5t
Advanced Research ProjectS
DifWSt for a time
1950S specifically
specil1caUy
added to make it DARPA), a cold war institution created in the 1950S
to COUnter
COunter the Soviet Union's perceived technological superiority in the wake of
w~sn't invented only with postlluclear
postnuclear applications in mind,
Sputnik. Even if it wasn't
post-WWll era went
interesr in advanced technological research in the post-WWII
military interest
br beyond specific
spccil1c applications.
applicarions. Rather,
Rathcr, ir
sociopolitiul
fat
it was of :la piece with a:I sociopolitical
belief System
th:lr had nuclear weaponry at its
irs heart.
system that
23
23

Sdf-Morivaring Exhilar.ltion"
Self-Motivating

;-,
g.:.
~"" ;0"
;-,

.-

o~~
-

OIl

II,
universities, high.tech
high-tech corporations,
corporations. the National Science Foundation, and the
fat the military-industrial complex, and
Pentagon. Yet it is the main radonale for
tetm remains an epithet across the political spectrum. Bush's :lpproach
(0
that term
approach to
development flies
core American values.
technology devdopment
Aies in the face of some cort
Basically, [hI':
the Bush appro2ch
approach willfully blurs boundaries between public and
firms and
alld
priv3te sectors md
and rums
rurns decision making over to small dubs of insider finns
private
intetvals,:ls
fronl
institutions. At odd bur inevitable intervals.
instirurionll.
as a result, it comes under fire from
both the Left and the Right. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower's 1959
speech in which he coinC'd
coined the rum
term ~milinry-indU$trialcompla:~
~militar}'-industri:ll complex" as
:IS a warning
spdt
juSt one early moment. In the 1;1.[(
late 19605,
1960s, the new Left made criticisms of the
was just
military-industrial complex
complex:la regulupart
regular part ofits
1980s rightmilitary.industrb.1
oEiIS repertoire. And by the 1980S
Reagan ;ldministration
administration led to
to raluCDOns
reductions in
wing:ultigovernment proclivities in the Rea~
wing:uuigovemment
calls to rely on the priv;lte
private sector alone.
:llone.
federal funding for b:lSic
b;lsic research
rese:trch coupled to c;ills
In recent years, Thomas Hughes has been a somewhat lonely voice speaking
"military_industrial_university complex,~
complex;
beh:llf of what he calls the ~mi1itary-industrialuniversity
explicitly on behalf
corporations. university research programs, and
the nexus of high-technology corporations,
h:lVe shepherded in many
m:'!ny of the great
gre:'!t tech
techgovernment agencies that together have
half-century." And he has spoken with some
achievements of the last halfcentury."
nological achievementS
post-Vietnam generation's
alarm and dismay at the postVietnam
generatioll's general disparagement of
rwo-decadcs-Iong decline in federally
feder:llly funded
this complex :md
and at the resulting rwodecadeslong
:ugues that much of the animus
SUtes. He persuasively
persu;lsively argues
research in the United St:ltcs.
against government funding for research is based on ;la misunderstanding of the
narnre
asmnishing advances in microchip design
nature of technological innovation. 1he
The astonishing
and manufacture as well ;IS
as telecommunications of the last
lur thirty years, he points
poinrs
:.md
case, key advances were
were:
arc not products of the market acting alone; in each cue,
out, are
incubated by government funding.
incub;lted
Council, chartered to
to OIdvise
advise the
Under the auspices of the National Research Counal.
government on martel'S
maLTers of scientific
sciemilic and ta:hnological
technological resc:trch,
research, Hughes chaired a
goo.-ernment
that prep:ared
prepared a 1999 report Funding a Revo/ufioll:
Govermlltllt Support
SlIpJlOrl
]kl'o!utwn; GO\lff7lml'!lt
committee ch:u
ComJlUlillg Rest'arrh.'"
Rtuarch. JO In an effort to refute
refUte the neoliberal
distrust of go'o<emgovem~
for Computing
neoliber.U disrrust
associated belkf
belief th;lt
that the market is the cause of a1I.
all innovation,
innov3tion, me
the
ment and the <IS.SOCiated
derails the fundamental
fUndamental role
role: of federal funding and institutions
report exhaustively details
computer revolution,
revolutiOn, from networking technology to VLSI microin creating the compUter
irs general conoonto computer
COmputer graphics. The report is inconttovertible
incontrovertible in its
processors to
most major developmentS
devdopment5
clusions that initial government money was essential to mOSt
the point of view of certain m;lnagers
managers and engineers,
in computing. In sum, from dle
of boundaries between public and private inherent
inherent'
the argument goes,
goes. the blurring ofboumuries
be experienced as a strength. The
TIle very ambigui
ambiguiin the Vannevar Bush approach can be
that create
cre:lte so much trouble for the American political imagination, in sum, also
ties thar
moderately"open~ space for scientific and technological inquiry.
to create a moderatelyuopen"
seem to
z6
26

"Self-Motivating
~Sdf-Morivaring

ExhilarationExhilaration'

efforr to find wisdom in the military-industrial

But Hughes' effort
militaryindustrial complex pits him
against a trend that cuts deep into the American psyche: a profound American
2gainst
organi:t:ttions in general. Consider the
ambivalence about government and big organiu.tions
OIrnbivaience
fact
that, although Edwards 2nd
and Waldrop provide polar opposite ;lCCOuntS
accounts of
12ct th2t,
narratives are anim;lted
animated by an aversion to big government.funded,
government-funded,
Licklider, both nalT:l.Dves
stOty, Licklider and his fdfelbureaucl"3tic org:mizarional
struCtures. In
[n Waldrop's
W:ddrop's story,
bureaucratic
organiu.rional StruCtures.
enthusiasts of~penonar
of "personal" computing arc:
are =ti\'e
creative individuals who triumphed
low enthusi2sts
3nd a rc:sist:1nce
resistance ro
to blinkerc:d
blinkered hUre:luCT:.lric
bureaucr3tic formalifonnalithrough pluck, brilliance, ;lnd
ties and political concerns; in Edwards's story, Licklider embodies that blink-

ered bUre;lucracy.
bureaucracy. But neither wtitet
writet shows signs of wanting
wanring to
co st:1nd
stand alongside
emf
more or less approving ofm;lt
of"th:u bUre:lucracy.
bureaucracy.
Hughes in the position of morc:
corporate liberal pOltternS
patterns need not be disAmerican ambivalence towards corpor:ne
corporate tibcralism
liberalism good or bad~
b3d~ is a
:I good question; it
missed as simplistic.
simplisric. Is cotporate
i' not irrelevant that
technologic3l accomplishments that
thar Hughes
is
thar many of the technological
celebrares did nor work (for example, SAGE) or might have ended human life
celebrates
as we know it if it did (the incercontinental
intercontinental ballistic missile),
missile). But
Bur it is a compli.
compli;IS
and
the
beginning
of
all
allswer
is
only
going
to
be
found
by
going
cared
question,
an answer
cated
lookcOlll'cntiollal wisdoms on the matter
maHer and look
beyond the various competing conventional
irs operations in detail. In some sense, this hook
book views the intercarefUlly at its
ing carefully
action. Something was
ncr preasely
precisely as a case stlldy
scudy of corporate liberalism in acrion.
net
done right in the early days of the internet's development; the internet is a case of
~good governmem,n
effective use of certain aspects
aspecrs of government power to
government,W of rhe
the dftive
(or of humankind. But what happened does nOt follow the vision of
improve the lot
reRection is required to
co undecst1lnd
understand what exactly
Vannevar Bush exactly; a bit of refltion

was done right.

wu
The Culture of the Interface:
Batch Processing versus Interaction

Edwards's ClOSl'd
Closed World
WorM still
stillstands
emphasizing, not JUSt me
the role
Edw;uds's
st;lnds almost alone in emphasizing.
fUnding, but the role of military
milirary designs :.md
and inrentions,
intentions, in setting the
of military funding.
luge for the rise of modern computing. &hvards
Edwards points to the darkest side of
uage
me military-industrial complex, a side thOlt
that most discussions of early computing
the
ovet Iigluly,
lightly, if they menrion
mention it at all. But Edwards's book
are too quick to pass over
a~
inrernet be(3me
docs not
became what it is today, so he does
was latgely
largely written before the imernet
"closed world~
world"
directly address what is now an obviolls
obvious question: How could the ~closed
h:lve
led
to
the
crearion
of
the
"anarchistic"
internet?
P:lt[
of
what's
missing
from
h;lve
creation
internet~ Part
students of culture
account is a sense of what smdems
culmre call the lived experience
Edwards's accoum
computers and the
of people working on computing: the feel of working with comPUtetS
thar various communities attached ro
to them.
rhem.
meanings that
27

Self-Moriv01ring Exhilaration"
Exhibrarion"
Self.Morivating

il

SYS/tlllS "SritlIC(
Dot" Pnx~S5jllg
Systems
"Stiellu~~ (Illd
aud Datil
Processing
l1lt
w~y of using computers in the 19505
19605 was batch processThe common way
1950S and 1960s
ing. Typically, a user would prep.ue
prepare a stack of punch cards, each containing a
chose to a computer operator, and hours
separate instruction or field of data, give those
che results. TItis
reAected the
r111~
This practice partly reflected
or days later pick up a printout with the
fact that computers
compmcrs were hugely expensi\'e,
expensive, delicate, and limited, so that allowing
anyone besides specially trained operators direct access to the machines would
accesS. Variet
Varierwas a way of rationing access.
have been unacceptable. Batch processing W3S
19705, even as interactive tenninm
terminals
ies of batch processing persisted well into the 1910S,

surted
al':lil:able. (Users of MSDOS may
rh3c
statted to become available.
mal' remember .bat files
liles that
could contain a series of instructions [0
be
executed
in
sequence;
the
.bat
stood
to
bard,.) But batch
barch processing. intentionally or not,
nor, also lent iudf
ccrnin
for batd,.)
itself to certain
were for
computers wete
habits of thought. It fit nearly with the original notion that computeu
doing elaborate
e1abotate calculations, in the way a scientist or
Ot statistician would develop
dellelop a
calculation itself.
formula or field of data before running the ca.lculation
w:!s the period in which computing spread into the corporate
The 1960s was
corpor-He
world, largely in the form of eKpensive
expensille mainfr.ames.
otber large entermainframes. Banks and other
prises diSCOllered
computers were useful for maintaining ;Illd
and manipulating
manipul.:ning
discovered that COmputers
infonnarion, such as mailing lists of cUStOmers
CUSlOme(S and records of financial
forms of infotmation,
rranuetions. In the 1960s these
rhese were the
rhe fastest
fastCllt growing areas of the industry.
transactions.
Spearheaded by IBM, computing became a part of big business and also became
Spurheaded
a big business itself.
The model of batch processing held sway during this era, partly for the
because it fit the instibur also beause
insti~
practical reason that it rationed computer use but
brge corporations. The tasks the computers
compurers wen:
were being used
tutional ethos of I.uge
rutional
for-coordination and rarionalization
rationalization of giant vertically integrated corporate
a.nd predictability across large organizations
org;tnizarions
enterprises-called for uniformity :I.lld
tightly delineated, prespecified rasks
tasks and fonnars.
formats. The separation of
and thus rightly
Habermas and others halle
means and ends is a hallmark of what Habennas
have described
thar h:ls
h~s been associated with bureau~
butuuas ~instrumental
"inStrumental rationality,~
rationality, the logic that
hiernrchical organizarions;
organizations; goals and procedures are worked out
cracy :md
and large hierarchical
beforehand.
el'eryone :md
and everything juSt
accordillg
beforehand, and then e\'eryone
just implements them according
to narrow rules. Large machines in the basements
basemenu of corporare
corporate headquarters
our routine rasks
tasks that
seemed to embody this logic. 1hey
They predictably carried OUt
rightly specified beforehand from on high; this fit
corpor:lte model
were tighrly
fir the corporate
nor celebrated as fun; they were imagined :IS
as
to a T. 111ese
These computers were not
irs fullest poprhe time reached its
powerful. 111e
The general sense of computing at the
cultural eKpression
expression in HAL, the murderously intelligent
culrural
imelligenr computer in St:\Illey
Stanley
Kubrick's film 2001.
1001.
18
2.8

Sclr.Motivating
"Self-Motivating Exhilaration"
Exhibr.arion

One of the ironies during this period, however, w.as

was th;lt.:l.s
that as computers became
rhey were doing
doillg less acmal
actual computing, less mathematical
m:lthematical calculamore common they
Insread they were sorting, org.:l.nizing.
organizing, :lnd
and comparing-doing
comp.aring-doing those things
tion. Instead
we noW associate with databases. Increasingly, the underlying logical structure
srrucrure
machematics but sequences of letters and words, particularly the arbiwas not mathematics
alphabet. By about
aboul 1970, the majority of computers were
trary sequence of the alphabet_
th:1ll they were used
llsed for complex calculaused more for manipulating symbols than
used.
tlnn for what was coming to
ro be called dara
data protions,less for number crunching than
to make
cessing. Licklider and his associates would occasionally use this trend to
c;ue for thinking of computing in t:Idically
ndic:ally new ways, more as communication
the case
not fit most people's
devices than as fancy calculating machines."
machines!' But this did nOt
fundamenpreconceptions. People still tended to assume that computers were n.llldamentally mathematical tools. Computer
Conlputer science professor and pioneer Andries
AndriCll Van
D.:I.m once approached his university's vice president in charge of computing in
Dam
computers
the 1960S with a request for computer time for experiments in using eomputers
for rhe
the humanities. TIle
bec:luse "that
~that would subvert
The administrator was reluctanr
reluctant because
the true purpose of computers, which was to produce numbers for engineers and
scientists.""If you want to
to screw :lround
text," the administrator continued,
around with teKt,"
scientists:""If
rypewriter.HJ>
"use a typewriter:'"
What
that, instead of asserting th3t
thar compUterS
computers were
\Vhat sustained this vision was that.
rellerse; computers, it was
not Strictly
strictly mathematical, the logic tended to work in reverse;
ccrrainry inro
assumed, were bringing an aun
aur.a of mathematical certainty
into nonmarhematinonmathematical
ComputerS would allow us to "mathemati2
"m:lthematiu human
hum.:l.n affairs.
afF.lirs.
cal. problem areas. Computers
dara proSo the nonnumerical use of computers fell under the stilted rubrics of data
cessing and infonnation
information processing. Data processing. it was often implied, would
bring math
mathlike
like scientific precision, efficiency, and control to e\'er
ever more areas in
life.
Uk.
TIlis dream was ncar
grandest and
:lnd Ill0St
influential intellecThis
near the heart of the gr.rndcsr
moSt inAuenrial

tual.
fOt making sense of all this at the time, syStemS
systems science, or cyber.
cybertual framework for
conceit of systems
nerics,
b.te 196oS.
19605. The core COnceit
netics, which reached its apogee in the late
corpor.:l.te hierarchies
hier.archies
science was that
thar nearly everything, from ballistic
balliStic missiles to corporate
sdence
pWCCllses, could be conceived :lnd
qU:lnritativcly ;tnalyud
md quantirati\'e!y
analyzed in tenns
to political processes,
TIle use of computers for
of functionally organized systems of feedback loops. The
managerial and military command-and-control
command-:lnd-COlltrol :llld
and their use for more mundane
maintaining an inventory
inllentory were understood, in sum,:l.S simply V3riations
variations
tasks like maint3.ining
thtill of systems science came,
C:l.me, not JUSt from
on the same theme. Much of the thrill
~n
complexity. but from its promise of control of that
rhat
its
ItS promise of understanding compleKity,
complexity. The conceits ofsystems science allowed communic:ltions
communications at
at.:l.a distance
COmple:city.
affairs ro be understood ;IS
as comp:lrible.
compatible, almost integral.
and connol
control over human aff.tirs
rhink tanks
ranks ;tnd
and foundations like
Popular both in academia and in the world of think
29
2.9

-Self-Motivating Exhi[.ar.lrion
Exhibrarion"
Sdf.Moriv.aring

systems science was offered as the solution,

solurion, not just to
the RAND corporation, sysrems
complexity, but also problems like inner-ciry
inner-city senfe.
problems of military complexiry,
S[rife, poverty,
and inequaliry."
inequality."
overarching fntmework
framework like systemS
systems
gntndiosiry of an o"entrching
But even without the grandiosity
intO many
science the dream of mathematizing mundane aspects of life filtered into
hut telling illustntrion
illustration of how the vision embodied in infor
inforareas of life. A small but
practice can be seen in the early efforts around
mation processing operated in pntctice
marion
dedine of
autOmation, a trend that appeared during the decline
what was called
ca.l.led office aUtOmation,
b:m:h pt"OCCMing
processing bur that pursued a similar undedying
underlying logic_
logic. In the \au
late 1960s
1960S and
batch
1970S,
the
computer
industry.
with
IBM
at
the
lead.
introduced
the
concept
early
eady
compUter industry,
lead,
centraliu::d word processing centers, where traditional secretaries were supof centr.tlized
repb.ced by teams of~correspondencesecretaries~
of"correspondence secretarie,,;" working at rows of
posed to be replaced
terminals attached to larger computers in the name of efficiency and cost reducfurure, and other hightion'" l1tis
tion.'"
This vision became referred to as the office of the future,
enter this apparently
apparemly burgeoning market. Comtech firms eventually sought to emer
tht theory wem,
went, would automate
amomate the fronr
front office the same way machines
machine~
puttrs, the
puters,
automared the fuctory.
Forbes enthusiastically
enthusiaseically predicted,
predicted.
and engineering had automated
factory. Fvrbes
"with autOmatic
typewrirers tattling
it
Nwith
automatic typewriters
ratding off error-free letters at incredible speeds, ir
willjusr
to do the
rhe job:'"
job."" In 1973, Xerox Chairman C. Peter
will
juS[ take fewer secretaries to
way:"ln
McColough de,,;cribed
described the company's strategy this way:
~In the next decade, if we
genente real efficiencies in the office.
are to gener-Ite
office, we're going to have ro
to alter traditional
lbe
idea
of
one
secretary
for
one
executive
is
no
longer effidem
efficient or
Structures.
srructurtl. The
w
economical.
have to reduce and teposirion
reposition the role of paper.
paper.""
"
economicaL And we h:l\"e
Within a dec.ade,
dec;tde, McColough's vision would become.a
become a popular business school
Within.a
case
nlanageri;tl short.sightedness.
short-sightedness.
C2S(" study in manageri.al

MIHI-Computrr Symbiosis" arld

and
-Marl-Computer
t/,r Limits of Imtrumerl/al
IllstruIIl('lltal Reason
Reasoll
the
H

Licklider was p.art

p:m of .a:a minority with other ideas. The principle exception to
buch processing .at
at first c.ame
came directly from the
rhe cold war
W:lr milif;lry
milit;try drorts
efforts of the
b:uch
19SOS. The milit.ary
military emphasis on jets,
jeu, ntdars,:and
radars, and eventually ballistic missiles cre
cre19505.
early 1950S,
1950S. an effort began to
to develop computers
ated a need for speed. By the e.ady
p1:lnes
that could be used to calculate trajectories and flight paths of missiles and planes
ch:lt operators
operatorS could use the computers in much the
almost instantaneously so that
same way radar technology was used in World War II, but across greater dis~nd with greatet
greater accuracy. The disciplinary term
rerm for this field of endeavor
endeavol'
ranees
tances and
cOllullAnd,
and
COl/lm/;
Licklider's
official
title
at
ARPA
bec:une
commullicaliolls,
became commuuicatious, commAud, And control;
tide
TIle
he:ld of the Behavioral Sciences and Command and Comrol
was head
Control programs. The
UM: computers
compurers and telecommunications rechnology to extend mili~
ntili
goal was to use
Jo
30

"Self-Modvaring Exhib.ntion"
Exhilaration"
Self-Motivating

t;try control
conrrol across
:across distances with
With ever more detail and in ever quicker response
tary
toW:lrds
center and
:and reducing the :autonomy
thOM: on
tjmes,
bringing
power
times,
TOwards the cemer
autonomy of mose
experimental computer built at Lincoln LabontTOries
Laboratories at
the front lines. An early experiment:l.l
MIT ailed
called. Whirlwind
\~hirlwind eventually grew into project SAGE,
SAGE. the first put
part of the
MlT
nudear early w:l.rning
warning system."
nOt a success in its own terms-m:any
terms-many
nuclear
system!' SAGE was not
now say th.at
that the system never would h:l.ve
have worked in the case of an acmal
actual nudar
nuclear
noW
radarexchange>l-but me
the mode of using these computers uniquely involved :I.a ntdar
exchange'"-but
call intel'2crive.
interactive. Thus
cathode ray tube or CRT. SAGE was what people now ca.l.l
like athode
firsr people to experienceplaying
experience ~playing" with a compUter
computer did so in the
it was that the first
manage the unmanageable
unm:anageable possibility of nude:ar
heart of the cold war effort to man.age
nuclear
W

war.
:addictive
This was the technology with which Licklider first experienced the .addictive
direer computer incel'2ction.
interaction. Some who noticed the holding power of
quality
qualiry of direct
direct interaction with the computer no doubt treated it as odd but insignificant,
yOIl might notice
nocice but then dismiss with :I.a shrug while you go
one of those things you
lll:ay h:l.ve
h;tve lain
l:lin in his effort
on to other matters. Licklider's intdlectllaluniqueness
intellectual uniqueness may
mr<1lJi,lg to the experience,
eKperience, to put it in a specific, legitimating
to attribute positive ItttllUIIIg
intellectual framework. There were others of his generation who made specific
rlt;tt contributed to the new way of conceptualizing
technological innovations that
visualization, for example, was
computers; Ivan Sutherland's work on computer visuali:tation,
antral. But Licklider seems to have been the one who provided a framework that
central.
helped others to look at innovations like Sutherland's and see something other
Licklidt'r was a leader in taking his fascination with the
than a curious gizmo. Licklider
interactive experience and seeking to turn it in new, more generalized directions.
Joseph Licklider was
W:lS trained as a psychologist in the 1930S and 1940S, with a
patticular interest in how people process information.
inforrn:lriOIl. One of the key moments
particular
ide:l of systems science or cybernetics was .aa series of
in the development of the idea
meetings called the MaC)!
Macy conferences held immedi.ately
immediately after World \Var
War II in
Cambridge, Massachu.sern.
Massachusetts. Norbert \Viener,
Wiener, Licklider, and
other foun
founCambridge.
:and many omer
dational figures attended these invitation-only meetings that gave birth to a
darional
rerms and concepts that,
that. :u
as Edw:ards
pues it, "redefined
influential set of terms
Edwards pUts
highly inHuential
psychological and philosophical notions in the tenninology of communications
psychologic~
take the notions that emerged in these
engineering:" Licklider and his ilk would rake
OUtputS, and
:lnd so on-into the
input! and outpUtS,
meetings-negative feedback loops, inputs
"Closed
World" intellectual universe that metaphorically melded humans with
Closed World~
machines for military purposes. The idea that thinking was like information
thac computers could become
processing laid the foundariOll
foundation for bOlh
both the idea that
;trtificial intelligence, but also, reciprocally,
minds, the cornerstone of the field of artificial
that people could be understood :and
and org:anized
organized into centrally controlled commucommu
sciellCc.
nication systems, the cornerstone
cornerStOne of the field of systems scienee.
31

"Self-Motivating Exhilaration'
Exhilaration"
ScIfMorivating

II

Licklider's principal influence

:n
inRuence came from his role as head of compudng
computing at
ARPA in the 1960s,
Ig60$, where he gave OUt a lot of money to people who would
de e1op many of the pracrices
pr.tCtices and protocols that became the internet,
e...entually
eventually develop
internet.
en...ironment of the time,
rime,
indicati e of his thinking. and of the rhetorical environment
But indicative
was a 1960 essay called ~Man-Computer
h:lVe
"Man-Computer Symbiosis.Symbiosis." This essay is said to have
~n
been a g;a1vanixing
galvani:dng synthesis of curring-edge thinking abollt
about ("omputer
computer intera("tiv_
interactiv_
ity....
iry.""
Most read
ess:lY today
rod:lY in classic teleological fashion, .scanning
scanning me
the :l.rtide
~ad this CSS2y
article
predict our present-day situation.
situation, such as LickLider's
Licklider's
for elements that seem to prediCt
Comror-something some have
ha...e seen as a
call for -Desk-Surface
"Desk-Surface Display and Connor-something
to
forerunner to desktop computers-or his proposals for graphics and icons
i("ons (0
&equendy cited as a key text
facilitate computer use. On this basis, the
me article is frequently
in inspiring the modem
modern compurer revolution."
re...olution.' While it is certainly true that
alternati...es to batch processing earlier
earliet than most in the
Licklider was looking for alternatives
rhe
19Sos and early 1960s,
Ig60s, one needs to look closely at why.
1950s
"ManComputer
piece. It is certainly not a direct con"Man-Computer Symbiosis" is a strange pie.:e.lr
contains only the most casual references
tribution to science or engineering; it conrains
de...elopments and capacities, and his primary empirical
to actual technological developments
thar is linle
evidence is a so-called time and motion analysis that
litTle more than Licklider's
description of how he spends his day. And the conceit of the tide-that
tirle-that humans
Ii...
:lIld
rdationship, as if they were both ljvand computers could interact in a symbiotic relationship,
ing beings-has rarely been taken seriously since.
Paul Edwards offers one of the only critical discussiollS
diKussions of this essay, focusrdation
ing on its
irs cold war institutional context and its cyborglike vision of the relation
between humans and computers, with its implied reduction of human n:lrure
nature
nOteS,
systems." The title's metaphor, Edwards notcs,
to predictable and controllable systems."
is basically a twist on a very science-fiction-like notion of artificial
artincial intelligence.
casually cites a prediction that compurers
computers will surpass
Surpass the power of the
Licklider ca.sually
IgSo-one in a long line of wildly o...eroptimistic
human brain by 198o-one
overoptimistic predictions
fOt the interim
in the field-and suggests man-computer-symbiosis as a strategy for
compurers reach
teach that point.
period before computers
Part of what makes the article work is Licklider's suggestion that
thar direct interaction with computets
computers could automate
auromare dtudgery;
drudgery; instead of spending time plotting gtaphs
graphs by hand, for example, scientists and managers could let computers
draw the graphs (or
for them and spend their energies on interpreting results. Bur
di~tinguish symbiosis from the notiOIl
Licklider takes care to distinguish
notion of computers as
merely extensions of human capacity. His idea is largely th:lt
that computers
COtll?uters will work
sla...es, taking care of all the tedious routine work that
as happy, conversational slaves,
can focus on actual
norm:llly
normally fills
nils the life of a knowledge worker so that people (;tn
learning and decision making.
3Z
32

"Self-Morivaring
"Sclf-Modvating Exhilaration"

One of Licklider's twO principal justifications for his scheme is drawn from
1T0m
cold
~to
[d war military designs that were paying his bills. "Imagine trying." he writes, ~tO
direct
~ a battle
banle with the aid of:l.
of a computer" using b:ltch
batch processing. ~Obviously,
"Obviously, the
direct a
.
ld be o...er
over before
befote the second step in irs
its planning
pbnning W:!.S
was begun. To thmk
think
bartleW
would
ou
e
I
batt
.
.
that you thmk
think With
with a colleague
.in interaction
. -ccion with a computer in the same way rhat
In mte...
whose competence supplements your own will require much tighter coupling
berw
hy the example and than is possible
bt'tWccn
suggestw. by
een man and machine than is suggeMed

ada -,J
today.""
But Licklider's
Licklider'sotherjustification,
B~t
otherjusrifica.tion, which he lists prior to the military one, is this:
Man)'
problems [hat
rhougln throUgll
are ''a')'
\'Cry diffirolt
difficult to
M2n1' probIem$
mat can be thought
mrough in advance
ad'';lnc:e ;au
ro Think
mink
Through
advance. They
would be usia
easier to
faSTer,
mrough in advana.
The)" ,,-ould
ro 5OIve,
~ and [hey
they could be wived
~Ved. &stet,
Through
intuinw.ly guided trial-anderror
procedure in which the
computer
through an inruiriwly
rriaJandcrror proced.ure
rhe computet
cooperated.,
wming
up
ltaw$
in
the
reasoning
or
revealing
unexpected
cooper:ned., rurning lbwJ rhe renoning
Unl:lrpeeted. turns
rums in
rolunon. Other problems
$imply cannot be formu[:ned.
formulued. wirhout
witham computingthe solution.
problcnlJ Jimply
Ihe frusrrarion
frulilrarion ofan
of an important
impoTtall! group of wouldmachine aid. Poincare anticipated
anticipated. the
wauld
compurer UKr$
users when
whcn he uid.lbe
said, ~11\( qurion
quuriOtl II
nOl, '\\!hn
'What is the
answer!" Thc
be compUter
is nor.
rhe answer?"The
question ;s,
is, '\lIhat
alll1$ of man-computer
'\\!hac is the qucstionr
question!'" One of the main aims
n.an-computer
formulative partS
parTS
symbiosis is to
ro bring the
rhe computing machine effectively into the formubrive

of tedmical
technical problems."
This is a significant passage with :ll\
an interesting
imeresting philosophical twist. Licklider
is trying to argue, in language :lnlenable
:l.menable to (he
the "Closed World" logics of his time
im'olves,
and place, that unscripted pillyillg with a computer might be useful. Pia)'
Play involves,
s:lke instead of for a
and mighr
might be defined as, an activity engaged in for its own sake
th:lc are
arc interactive
interacti...e because
prespecilied end. Licklider wants
wallts computer systems
syStemS that
fiddling.. systems where
whete you can pl:l.Y
play with
With
they lend themsel\'es
themselves to
to tinkering. to
to nddling.
tiglnly specined
specified plan
pl:lll or goal,
goal. Such :Ia view of computing.
computing.'
them without having a tightly
abollt it, would offer Licklider
Licklider:la meaning
mermillg in his expewhatever else one could say about
compulsion. It would justify
rience of computer ("ompulsion.
tience
justifY his pleasure in the machine...
machine."
In tetrospect.
we
could
reason:lbly
argue
that
much
of"Man-Computer
rettospe,
reasonably
of-Man-Computer Symbiosis~
odd. wrong.
wrong.. or thinly supported. The :lrticle's
biosis- is odd,
article's inRuence, though, was not
articula(e a justification
due to its
teclmological arguments.
argumems. His effort to articulate
irs specific tcrhnological
justifica.rion
[0
for his plea.'iure
pleasure in the machine brings him, and the reader along with him, to
en...ironmenr.
Licklider
is
no
the edges of the dominant logic of his intdkoctual
intellectual environment.
philosopher, but by suggesring
suggesting that questionformation
questionforrnation might be brought into
que~tion is, what is
i~ the question!-he
the computing process-the question
quesrioll!-he is expressing
frusttation with the technocratic ideal of instrumental rationality
a Certain
certain wise frusrration
ofthe
characteristic of
the institutional world he inhabited. Batch processing as a practice enforced a strict separation of means and ends; for any given problem, the
questions and methods for answering them had
b:ld to
[0 be worked out
ou[ entirdy
entirely before
compmer. Licklider is looking [0
the stack ofcards
of cards could be submitted to
to the computer.
to jus33

'Self-Motivating Exhilantion"
Exhilaration"
"Sdf-Motivating

tify a compming practice that is not about achieving pregiven, strictly delineated
ends; he is looking for.an .alternative to the natrow, instrumental rationality that
was reinforced by traditional batch processing.
Licklider's desire to justify unscripted play with rhe computer took him to
the edge of rhe dominant logic of his time, but nor beyond ir. The maner-ofb.ct references to fighting WltfS, to commanding and controlling distant events,
are srill there alongside the brief hims of alrernative logics; it says something of
Licklider's time and place that he an sec rhese different modes as congment (and
something about ours that we annot)_ By 1965, the concern for winning barnes
began w be sidelined in Licklider's writings, bur there W:l$ still a general emphasis
on an abstracted individual asserting control at a distance. He argued, for example, that a computeri'Zed information system would bring~rhe user of the fund of
knowledge imo something more nearly like :an execmive's or commander's position.... He will say what operations he wants performed upon wh:ar parts of
the body of knowledge, he will see whether the results make sense, and then he
will decide what ro have done next.~ The user, even in engaging in personal or
political exploration, would be commanding that operations be performed and
will have things done. The reasoning was instrumental, even if the applications
were no longer so blatantly nightmarish.
By the mid-1960S, though, Licklider also began to add Rights of utopianism to
his descriptions of the possibilities of networked computing. He argued that, if
a massive computer network involving ~home computer consoles~ and tcle\'ision
sets were constructed, citizens would be ~infonned abour :.Ind interested in, and
involved in, the process of gO\ernment.... The political process would essentially be a giant rdeconference, and :.I campaign would be a months-long series of
communic:.ltions among candidates, propagandists, commentators, and \oters.~n
What's significant is not JUSt that Licklider anticipated the blogosphere forry
years in :.IdV<lllce-that would be simple teleological analysis-but that this brief
skerch emerged a.s part of an effort ro justify unscripted interaction with compUters, an effort w overcome the separation of means from ends characteristic of
inSTrUmental reasoning.

E"gelhart, Bus'" and tl'e Encyrlopedic Dream

Here Licklider m:.lY h:.lve been echoing the thoughts of one of his proteges, Douglas Engelb:.lrt, who by th:.lt time was working from a lab ar the Stanford Rese:.lrch
Institute in P:.Ilo Alto, Engelbart is known today:.ls the inventor of the windowing interface, the mouse, and the idea thar networked computers could be used
as collaboration devices. There is no question that his work W:.lS important and
influentiaL But we should nOt fall prey to reading events thrOUgh the lens of the
34

Self-Motivating Exhilaration"

current structure of things or conclude that his visions or specific inventions had
impact simply through their brilliance or foresight. Engelbart and his [earn were
certainly not the only ones working on compUters as communication m:.lchines.
Fot eX":.Imple, while Engelbart continued working on his project in [he 19705, computer scientists at rhe Uni\'ersiry of lIIinois were ~,,'eloping the PLATO system,
which was focused on educational uses and that used touch screens to navigate
graphical interfaces; i[ may be merely accidents of timing. funding. and geography
that we all use computer mice ro(f:.ay instead of touch screens....
Yet Engdb:.lrt's research is indicative of the way that dominant logics and
lived experience of technologies interact. Engelbart's efforts, though working
with ARPA fimding funneled his way by Licklider. show lirde or no direct evidence of the cold war command and conrrol vision evident in Licklider's writings.
(Edwards does not discuss Engelbart.) Instead, Engelbart insisted that his work
on a ~Program on Human Effectiveness" was necessary ro social improvement.
Taking Licklider's interest in improving human problem-solving abilities ro a
grander level, Engelbart introduced his program in rhis way:
Human beings face evtr more complex and urgent problems, and their effectiveness in dealing with dlese problems is a marter that is critical to the srabiliry and
continued progress of sociery. A human is effective nor just because he ~pplies
to a problem a high degree of native intelligence or physical mength ... bur aJso
!Kause he makes U$e of efficient tools, metho<L<, and str.lregies. These: latter may
!K direcdy modified for inerc.ued effectiveness. A plan to systematically evolve
such modifications has been developed at Stanford Resareh Institure.". The
~ibilities we are pursuing involve an integrared tn<lnnuchine working relationship, where dose. continuous interaction with a computer a\':l.ils the human of
~icallr changed information.handling and .porrra)'a! skiDs, and where clever
un1i:z.ation of mae skills provides radicaJ. changes in the war the human arrach
probknu. Our aim is ro bong significant improvement to the re~-Iifc problemsolving eIftivmess of individlUis. Jt is kit that such a prognm comperes in soci:ll
significance with resarch row:l.rd harnessing rhermonuclur power. apIoring
ourer space. or conquering canctt, and tIw the pcKenri.al p.1yoFh warr:lllt a ronceRed arradr on the prineip.al probkm areas."
While still making the case for a "dose, continuous interaction with a computer,~
there was only a mild echo of Licklider's ~symbiosis~-~m:.ln.m:.lchine working
telationship.~ Engelbart eventually described his efforts grandly as a system for
the "Augmentation of Human Intellect:
More dearly than Licklider's vision, Engelbart's project is ar le:.lsc in part an
heir to rhe Enlightenment fascination thar found irs classic expression in DiderOt's Ellcydopedie. The eighteenth-century French plJilosoplJes who colUribuced to
the EIJ(ydopedie hoped that rationally organizing and making accessible all the
35

'Self-Motivating ElChilararion

sciemific and technological knowledge of the day would overthrow

scienrific
overthtOw superstition
and irrational passion, empower individuals, and
:ltId advance
advance: human progress,
progress. Bring_
Bring.
allmodcrIl
together effecrively,
dfcaiveJy. the theory went, willle3d
will lead to
ro more
mOTC
ing all
modern knowledge TOgether
ration:!.1 :md
and effective behavior
beh:lVior by individuals and thus a better society. Diderot's
Didc:roc's
ration31
Ellryc/(I/1Mir, moreover, W3S
was nor
nOt the "linear,"
"linear;' single-author book stepioneering EntydopMit,
reotyped by tod3Y'S
tod:lY's postmodern
posTl11odcrn fans
ftns of~nonlinear"
of"nonlinear" new
lIew technology; it had over
charts and illustrations (the multimedia of the day),
3a hundred authors, copious ,hans
was intended to be cross-referenced and consulted. not read
rcad cover to cover.
coyer.
and W3S
Engelhart was an inheriTOr
inheritor of this tradition and shared its faith that
that:la rationally
Engelbart
organi:1:cd, accessible system of knowledge will tame the bewildering complexity
organi::ed,
:Illd thereby overcome human folly.
folly,
of the world and
encyclopedic dream has been an ongoing feature
feamre of Western thought
The encydopedic
philoJoplJCJ. In the 1910S.
19:105, some librarians had been touting the powers of
since the philosop~s.
microllim for infonnation
information stor.age
stot:lge along encyclopedic
the then-new technology of micro6.lm
information widely accessible and easily
microllim would make hordes of infonnation
lines; microfilm
retrievable, thereby spreading enlightenment. Perhaps picking up on this theme,
19305 Vannevar Bush had begun speculating
specularing about
abom the advantages
advant:lges of
in the 1930S
lIlicrolllm, which would allowthe
allow~the contents
coments of a thousand
thous:md volumes (TO
{to be]
microfilm,
be) located
feet of desk. so that by depressing a few keys one could have
in a couple of cubic fut
instantly projected before him....
him,"" Bush, the technocratic manager
a given page insrantl)'
massive engineering projecrs,
projecrs. had observed the difficulty of making one's way
of massi\'e
amounts of technical infonnation.1he
information, the investigator is staggeted
suggered by
through vast amounrs
conclusions of thousands of other workers;
workers;' Bush wrote,
wrote. butthe
but "the
the findings and condusions
maze to the momenrarily
momentarily
means we use for threading through the consequent ma<:e
important item is the same as was used
llsed in
ill the days of square-rigged ships."J>
ships.HI And
imporram
:md published in Tht
17u ArI4/l/j,
AI/ul/tie Momhly
Mouthly in
then, in
ill a piece first drafted in 1939 and
Out a famasy
fimrasy office machine called the "memex"
"Illcmex" that would
1945, Bush sketched OUt
information, peruse indexes, take
automate whar
what one does in a libr;try-look
library~look up infonnarion,
automare
embcdded in a desk.
on~al1 at the push of a few buttons embedded
notes, and so on-all
The memex,
memex. as Bush described
dcscribed it, was nor
Ilot digital, nor
not networked,
networked. and not
hs resemblance to the modern personal computer is in mosr
most ways
wotkable, Its
even workable.
F.!.ct. has
h;ts called
c.:.llled into question the idea rhar
that it
Ihrdini, in fact,
ir was
superficial. Thierry Bardini,
.:.In
F.!.ctor in the development of modem
modern personal computing.
computing.1> Bush
an important factor
gCt credit,
that a machine like the
should perhaps get
credir, however, for advancing the idea rhar
memex could have the capacity to construct"trails"
construct''rrails between documents and other
lnemex
bits of information.
information, 111is
TIlis was likely the first
firsr melltioll
hyperlinks.
mentiOll of something like hypcrlinks,
bit's
The originality
originaliry of the idea of a hyperlink should not be exaggerared,
enggerated. 111e
'Ole idea
ide:l of
111e
a
trail
or
hyperlink
is
jUst
a
variation
on
the
idea
of
the
cross-reference.
perform.:l
JUSt
rhe cross-reference,
ing:la similar function (0
to the foomote,
footnote, the file card,
c:lrd, or the index. It is not
nor the
ing
c:lSe that
thaI before hypertexr
hypertext.:.lll
re;td linearly,
lineuly, from front cover to back,
b:lck,
all books were read
case
H

36

"Self-Motivating E"hibution"
Exhilaration"
Self-Motivaring

anenlion lO
without
any attention
TO interconnections, No one has ever read books contain. h ""ny
II1llt 0
leg:ll information has long
.ing Ilr:ga.l
=.1 documents from cover to cover, for example; legal
Ing~
..
trails lllto
into other docu
docubeen organized in a way that allows one to follow a web of traIls
rdevant precedents, argumentS,
arguments, and
;tnd so forth.
fotth. Bush simply added
3dded
ments
find relevant
ments to 6.nd
3UlOll1ate the process of cross'referencing
cross-referencing and
the thought that a machine might aUtOmate
that such a machine might put that power in
ill the hands of readers as
3S
suggested thar
....ell as
3S writers and editors. So to an important degree, Bush and Engelbart
Engelbarr were
well
the traditions of the Enlighrenment
Enliglltenment encyclopedic ideal,
continuing
3nd extending rhe
r;onrinuing and
not departing from it.
W'hat Engelbart and Bush's memex proposal clearly share, however, is a belief
What
the key problem was not the murk of medieval superstition and traditions,
that me
the philosophes.
plJilo50pht$, R:IIther,
R;tther. the problem
problelll was roo
too much
IIluch inforinfotthe chief bugaboo of me
dream,
macion, poorly organized.
organi:z;ed. This was their new twist on the encyclopedic drt2m.
m:lltion,
footnotes, libraries. indexes, and
:lIld file cards,
cuds, in other
The traditional :IIppararus
appat:ltus of footnotl:$,
won.is, h:lld
had not produced the world of enlightened clarity the philo$(/p~s
philo$opJ1($ had
words,
ti,e original encyclopedic project had
h:ld been re:l!ized,
reaJi:z;ed, but it
imagined. In a sense. the
the modem world was chod:.-full
chock-full of. not JUSt
just encyclopedias,
encydopedi:l.S, but
not work; rhe
did nOt
entire libraries bursting with indexed knowledge,
knowledge. and yet human folly was as
With the memex :lind
and irs
its trails, Bush was offering the tantalizt:lnulizpervasive as ever. \Vith
m.:.lt a m:llchine
machine could allow individuals ro
to cut through the ha<:e
ha:z;e of
ing possibility that
bunons, building their own trail of associ:lltions
associations
complexity at a lOuch
TOuch of a few buttons,
:IS
Bush's short essay on the merna
memcx suggested
suggested:l:II rechnological
technological fix, and
as they went. Bushs
Engelbart's life work has been brgely
largely framed in [enns
terms of implementing that fix, in
Engdban's
tarne uncertainty :lind
and
terms of using technology to enable knowledge workers to [:lime
complexity.
subficld of
Engelbart's work was more radical
radic;tl than work in the computing sub6.eld
;tlso an heir to
to the encyellcywhat was then called information retrieval and that was also:lln
clopedic vision. (Engelbart himself took pains to
infordopedic
ro distinguish his work from infor'
many differences,
difl-erences, Bardini goes so far as TO
to argue
mation retrieval.)
rerrieval.) Noting the ffi:llny
m:lltion
that Engelb:llrt
Engelbart was a descendant of
ofVvhorfian
ofl:lnguage,
true.
\Vhorfian theories of
language, which, if rrue,
non-CarteSi:lll episremological
epistemologic;tl uniwould suggest that Engelbart belongs in a.:.I non-C:IIrtesian
that Engelbart was indeed aware of rhe
the writings of
verse." Bardini does show thar
Whorf and that,
th.:.lt, JUSt as Wharf
fotms of langu:llge
l:lIlguage
Sapir and \horf
Whorf thought that the forms
d,at the forms and means of s)'m
symEngelhart believed
hclieved Ihat
could shape consciousness, Engelbart
imerbolic communication could hinder or help understanding; Engelbart was inter
balic
ested, not just in getting information more quickly or effectively, but in how new
communic.:.ltion powered by computerS
computers might
;tnd betmighr enable new and
Structures of communication
rer conceptualizations.
concepruali:z;ations,
ter
illltlltct. It remained, in
Yet Engelbart's project remained one
Olle of augmenting imrllect.
gO.:.lls, in irs funding,
funding. 3nd
and in its
irs driving assumptions a project of mind.
its stated goals,
37

Self-Motivating Exhilaration"
Sclf.Moriv,uing

II

\har, by arguing
uguing that different languages engender different conceptualiza\\'horf,
conceprualiZ3tion itself
contingent. At lust
tions of life, rendered concepru:diution
itsdf contingent,
lellSt to a degree in
Wharf, there
dtere are no longer,
say, Kantian
Kandan universal cncgories
c,ltcgories of mind bur rather
Whorf,
longer. u.y,
cOllringcm fonns
forms of undersu.nding
undusranding rooted in history and everyday life; rninking
thinking
contingenT
is of
of;1a piece with using language,
a
language
that
is
inextricably
cJllhedclcd
time
language.
ch;u
embedded in rime
and place.
pb.ce. As a theorise, Engelhart was nor fully Whorfi:m.
Whorfian. His starting assump;md
tion w;,u
was that
[ilM the
rhe problems of the world were ones thar
chat called for
fOr simply more
rion
say. differenr
different social rdarions
relations or an embrace of the
better intelligence, nor, .say.
and bener
contingencies of history
hisrory and tradition.
Like the .....ork
work of many nineteenth-century
ninereenth-cenrury utopians, there's something almost
poignant about
:lbout the sincere
sincere. idealism in Engelhart's
Engdban's writings.
wrirings, us..ing
using his turgid.
turgid,
poign:;mr
sociery.
mechanistic engineer's style
sryle to describe systems for the
rhe bettennent
berrernlent of society,
mechanisric
foresighredness and modest demeanot,
demeanor, it seems almost chudish
churlish
Coupled to his foresightedness
cau a crirical
critic:tl eye on his project.
poinring our
rhat the very idealto cast
project, Yet it is worch
worth pointing
Out that
stubborn attachment
aHachment to his vision, that makes him so appealing tends
ism, the srubborn
to lead the discussion away from certain hard questions,
queStions, On the one hand, the
to
Engelbarti:tn
vision
contains
a
deep
imparience
techEngelbartian
impatience with conventional scholarly rechknowledge. Are the tradiniques and institutions, wirh
with the
rhe existing worlds of knowledge,
organizing information really all that badf
bad~ 1he
tional ways of organi=ing
TIle sense of utopian
JUSt,
hope in Engelbart restS
rests on the argument that computers can provide, not JUSt.
say, convenient access to library catalogs and indexes, but a radical
r:ldical improvement
say.
the early Engelbart one
them, aile
on them.
one that will augment the intellect. To believe rhe
not only thar
that computers mighr
might accomplish the r:lsk
task of t:lsy,
easy, intuitive
has to agree, nor
information, bur rhat they can do so in a way dr.ldramanipulation of informarion,
access to and Tn.;Inipularion
institutions and technologies thar
that have been
matically better than the elaborate institurions
laSt five centuries.
developed for that task over the l3.$t
hand, whar
what about Engelbans
Engelban's version of the encyclopedic dream
dteam
On the other hmd,
itself~ Is poor access to and control O\'er
over infonnarion
informarion really such a cenrral
central cause
Clmse of
itself?
today~ Is lad;
lack of knowledge really the problem, the
rhe key impediment
our problems today?
ro progressf
progrcss~ A key Enlightenment conceit was thar once enough infonnarion
information
to
rhe means to
to make
about the world was made available and people were given the
Kales would f:J1I
fall from our eyes.
eyes, and human society
sociery as a whole
Unse of it the scales
sense
While there's no denying that
[hat the
rhe scientific
Kientific revolution
would be greatly improved. \oVhile
h:u changed human existence drOimatically,
has
dr.lmatically. we also have a century or so of expeCastS into doubt the belief that more
more. knowledge leads automaticall.y
automatically
Tience that casts
:tnd more reasonable behavior,
behavior. As exiled
el:iled German critics Max
to more humane and
Horkhcinler and Theodor
11leodor Adorno wrote in 1944.
1944, in the
Horkheimer
rhe full glare of the many
"rhe Enlightenment has always
scientifically powered horrors of World War II, "the
liber:lting men
Illen from fear and establishing their sovereignty,
sovereignty. Yet the fully
aimed at liberating
enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant.""
triumphant,H... Is ir
it berter
bener access to informa-

;8
38

"Self-Motivating Exhibntion"
Exhilar.lrlon"
'Self-Motivating

rion via computers

compurers or by other means really going to get at the source of our
OUT
woes~ Arc
the problems of rhe
the world really ones of inadequate
inadequare imeUect,
woes?
Are rhe
intellect. or are
structure, or values,
vOilues, or access to tesources?
tesources~
rhey more about,
abom, say, social structure.
they
merely that
These are large and difficult questions. 11,e
The key point here is metely
Engelbart and his fol1owers
did
nor
ask
them.
Engelbart's
vision
rests
on an unrefollowers
not
flective
conceir about the need for more
8ective acceptance of both an Enlightenment conceit
thar computers can enact
enacr th:tt
knowledge and a sincere belief that
that conceit where trasurface, it is a rather dry vision, in the
ditional means have failed. And, on the surface.
&arne
double-entry bookkeeping; it is
same category as the Dewey decimal system or double-entty
importance of these practices
pracrices
possible to wax enthusi:utic
enthusiastic about the profound imponance
nor a vision that on its
irs own terms is likely to
to
ir is not
(and people have done so), but it
gcner:lte much passion.
gener.ue
IntelleCt;
Beyond the Intellect:
Inreracrivity
The 1968 Demo and the Desire for Interactiviry
But. amongst a small
smal1 but hugely inAuential
influential group, Engelbarts
Engelbart's work did indeed
Bur,
certain way remains.
generate passion. Engelbart's work was, and in a cerrain
remains, somehow
not, Engelbart's r.ltiOnaJism
uuilling
thrilling in a way that similar work was not.
ratiOnalism was perhaps
nor the mOSt
aspecr of his project,
projecr. 111is
mosr compelling aspect
This deserves explanation.
me more incisive criticisms made of tationalism
rationalism by early
euly nineteenthOne of the
cenrory romantic philosophers was thar the rationalists
r:ltionalisu assumed tOO
cenrury
too much. By
universal, and
:Iud mathematically
m:lthematically specifiable
specifiOible
trying to hitch their analyses to grand, universaJ.,
&...meworks
of
Newtonian
physics.
the
Enlightelllnent
rationalisrs
assumed
a
lTameworks
physics,
Enlighrenmenr rationalists
even in
world of mathematical certainties driven by billiard-ball-like causaliry
causality ew:n
to a:ist,
exist, such as the world of human
whete such
sllch cenainties
certainties were not known to
areas where
fixed grid of causes, di.u:emable
discernable if
affairs, E\'erything.
Everything. they thought.
thoughr, is part of a fU::ed
affairs.
one could only shine the light
Iighr of science, of rational intelligence, brighdy
brightly enough
that is the case, then the solution to
to CUt through the murk of history. And if thar
rhem down in tenns
terms of events' places in a
problems can be found by breaking them
an conclude that
rh:lt it is both possible
thar one c:an
discoverable causal chain, And from that
and useful to
to separate means from ends; if causality follows univeru.1
universal principles,
insrmmentally conbreaking down the specifics into predictable-and therefore instrumentally
trollable-processes makes sense.
areas of life that grid is nowhere to be
But, the romantics countered, in some ateas
G. Herdet
Herder through his
found.
The
romamical1y
influenced
philosophers,
from J. G,
found,
romantically inAuenced
from).
many followers such as Coleridge and Matthew Arnold, tended to focus precisely
on phenomena driven by internal, nonuniverul,
nonuniversal. immanent logics; Herder's argurhar poerty,
poetr)', language, or cultural mores, for example, were
ment with Kant was rhat
e;uily shoehorned into:l
driven by unique peculiatities
peculiarities that could not be easily
into a univer39

"Sdf-Motiv:lting Exhilaration"
Self-Motivating

sal rationality,
rarionality, into a mathlike grid.
gtid. Partly the
rhe argumenr
argument was empirical; the differences berween
between French and English wete
were accidentS
accidents ofhisrory
ferc:nces
of his(Ory and could not be
universals, for example. But the critiques also took the form
explained in term of uni\'ersals,
causality: Ftench
French was Frc:nch
French and Engfish
English was
of alternative underst':lndings
undersr.lndings of caus.aliry:
immanent processes, patterns internal (0
to themselves, patterns
English because of immanenr
onto chains
ch;ains of cause and effect
that could not be understood by mapping them OntO
thar followed universal rules. Language or poetry could only be undersrood
understood from
that
From
within, as self-driven phenomena.
Engelhart's jusdficarions
jUSlifications were on the surface doggedly rationalisr,
rationaliSl, but what he
Engelbart's
actually tried {O
to build was sdf-drivrll,
Jelfdriveu, a compuring
computing environment driven by proacrually
bootstrap.
inelf. 111is
cesses internal to itself.
This is mosr
most explicit in Engelbart's concept of bootst~p
011 Engelbart with
elegantly analyzed in Thierry Bardini's wonderful book on
ping. elegandy
Boowmpping, B:udini
Bardini shows how Engelb.art,
Engelbart, in contrast
thar term as in
its ride. In Bootstrapping,
that
conrrast
compuring field, h.ad
had .aa much richer sense of the importance of
to others in the computing
relarions in technology de\'C':lopment.
development. Engelbart
Engelb:art viewed his project as nor
not
social relations
JUSt one of compurer
computer design bur .as
as essentially .aa project of social expetimentaexperimentajusr
rion involving computcrs,
compurers, where those developing his system would be learning
tion
samc time
rime thu
to inter.lcr
inreracr with one
onc another over it at che
the same
that they worked on the systheory would occasion a feedback loop that would steadily improve
tem; rhis in rheory
rem;
practical. (Van Dam has credited Engelbart wirh
with
the system, making it ever more pracric:d.
software tools,
rools, where instead of writing comthe now common idea of shared softwate
plere progr.lms
programs designed for specinc
specific tasks, numerous connectable bin
bits of codeplete
rools-are created
cre;aced SO
so that e\'enrually
eventually a progr.lmming
programming environment is cultivated
cukivarea
tools-are
that allows large numbers
nunlbers of programmers ro
to build on and rake
take advantage
advamage of
ochers' work; the noDon
notion of soft\vare
software rools
tools es.senrially
essenrially brings social relations
each others'
explicidy inside the process of engineering.)" Bardini also shows how for Engelexplicitly
ban users were imagined, nOt
peo
bart
not just as disembodied minds, but as embodied peofirst insnnce
pie who experienced the world in the fitsr
ple
instance through the senses, visually
bur even more importantly through physical touch;
expb.in Engelbart's
Engclban's
but
rouch; this helps explain
invention and nscination
fascination with things like the computcr
computer mouse and the chord
im'ention
e1eg:lntly traces rhe
the inAux
influx of 1960S counterculrural
counterculcural inHuinflukeyboard. And Bardini elegantly
keyboard,
developed (and evenrually
eventually deg~ner
degenerences in Engelbart's project, particularly as it d~veloped
ated)
ared) in the 1970s.
1910S,
Enlightenmenc
erected his efforts
effons on a base of dusic
So while Engelbart erecred
clas.s.ic Enlightenment
pro
terms, encounters
encouncers with his project offeted
offered the experitnu
exptrirllcr of immanent prorhe context of computing. This
111is is perhaps best illustn.ted
illusrrated by looking at
cesses in the
1968 mother of all demos."l11
demos."l' By all accounts,
accounrs,
Engelban at his most influential, the 1968~mother
Engelbart
momenc in the effurt
a breakrhrough moment
effort to move beyond batch processing came in
Engelbart for the first
rime publicly demonstrated
December 1968, when Engelhart
Dec~mbet
fitst time
demonstrared his sysinllOlving 11etworked
compurers using gn.phical.
graphical, windowed inrerfaces
interfaces and
tcm involving
tem
nerworked computers
U

40

"Sdf.Moriva.ting Exhilaration"
-~lf-MOTivating

computer mice to collaborate

coJiabor:lte temotely
remotely across a computer nerwork.
network. Many thenco re\'olutioni:<:e
revolurionize the W2y
way people
young computer scientists who would later go on to
:lS Alan Kay and Andries Van Dam,
Dam. They
were present, such as
used computers wer~
both eite
cite Engelbart's presentation
preSentation as a galvanizing moment. Srewart
SreWart Br.lnd,
Brand. creere
atOr of the Wholt EllT/h
Catlliog and the man who in the
rhe 1910S
1970S and 1980S
1980s would
ator
Earth Ultalog
playa;l key role in shepherding the computer
counterculture into organized exisplay
compur~r countercultur~
camera."
tence, manned a camera."
nature of
celebrated.ll Yet
The demo has been widely discussed and celebrated."
Yer the exact natute
descrves consideration. To a room full of inhabitants of
the thrill of the demo deserves
the frustrating world of batch ptoc~ssing,
processing. the
me demo was
lVas a window onto longedpossibilities. The
TIle demo began by displaying,
displaying. in a full screen, a fictional
for new possibilities,
rime when
whell even
interactive tenninals
terminals
grocery shopping list. At a time
~\'en the relatively rare inte~crive
full-screen display
one line at a time,
rime, the
rhe simple nct
fact of seeing a fuII-scteen
generally worked on~
text, all acces.sible
accessible at once, must
musr have bttn
been exciting enough.
Bur Engelbart then
chen
of tut,
enough, But
procecded ro
to use the
che mouse, keyboard,
manipulatc
proc~~d~d
keybo:lr<1, and chord
chotd handset to Ruently
Hu~ndy manipulate
lisc, breaking rhe
the list into caregories,
categories. displaying it as indented secthe shopping list,
oudine form, and then-with what must have been jaw-dropping ease
case
tions in outline
scate of computing at
ac the time-showed th~
the list items linked to points
given the state
on a graphically displayed simplified map. To an audience already bitten by the
bug. by the desire to interact with computers, the effect of Engelbart
computer bug,
have
gracefully maneuvering through this online world from his console must ha~'~
been riveting. It was a world of text and ideas in graceful athletic
athl~tic motion, suggestive of any number of possibilities.
Yet
was merely suggesD\'C.
suggestive. Engelbart and his colleagues did not
nor acrually
aCTUally
Yer it w.as
demonstrate any progress on the base claims of his proj~ct;
project; beyond work on the
che
demonstrat~
srillvery
there was
system itself (which was in any case still
very much a work in progress), th~re
evidcnce of real-world
realworld ptoblems
problems being solved,
solvcd, of real complexities being manno evidence
aged or overcome.
Even
if
developed
to
rhe
praccicality, an automated
overcome,
to the poillt
point of practicality,
Ellgclbatl would be at best
rhose
shopping list as described by Engelbart
besr a convenience. To those
with spednc
institutional tasks in mind, like Pentagon officials interested
specific insritutional
intetested in conltoHing
milit:ary efforts, or Xerox chairman McColough
McColollgh with his intertrolling far-Aung military
value of Engelbart's
work
was invisible.
invisible. \Vhere,
'vVhere,
est in Taylorizing the office, the valu~
Engelhart's
exactly.
was the intellect
intellecr thar
that was being augmented:'
real-world complexieucdy, w.as
augm~nted~ \Vhat reai-world
discerncd and overcome?
ll1is was thrilling only if you were susties were being discerned
O\'ercome~ This
rhac wotking
working with
wirh computers might be a compelling activity
ceptible to the idea that
activiry
for its
Oll'll sake,
jllkc, without a predetermined
prcdetcrmined goal in mind,
mind.
jor
ilJ OW"
bcgan his presentation
prescntation with the following,
following. now legcndary,
legendary, words:
Engelbart began
~If in
ill your office, you as an intellectual worker were supplied with a computer
"If
instandy
that was alive for you all day and was instantly
display backed up by a computer thar
that:'" The appealing vision
responsive, how much value could you derive from that?"
41

"Sdf.Motiva.ting Exhil:n:uion"
Exhilararion"
Self-Motivating

of "a computer that was alive for you all day and was instantly responsive~ must
have seemed extremely tantali:<;ing to this group, most of whom were struggling
with barch-ptocessing systems and thus had had only small tastes of ditect, "playful" interaction with a computet. Viewets of the demo were treated, not to the
absttact principle of solving complex social problems, but to a lively enactment
of what it could feel like ro intetact with an "alive~ and "instantly responsive" computer system in an unscripted way, in a way where the interaction was driven by
its own internal logics and processes.
The thrill of the demo, in sum, was not about achieving a prespecified goal.
The thrill was all about the means, The lack of any specific ends was part of the
appeal. It was deep play, an event that exceeded rational justification, that in its
celebratory intensity became a kind of community metacommentary, a story not
for outsiders, but one that people "tell themselves about themselves."" As with
Licklider, the desire for interaction with the computer, for that feeling of "selfmotivating exhilaration," was seeking and finding a justificarion, a shared meaning. The demo succeeded, particularly insofar as it offered its attendees not JUSt
ideas, but, in the audience's enthusiastic reception, confirmation and encouragement of the connection of the desire for interactivity with a sense of direction for
computing. After the Engelbart demo, individuals with an interest in computing
had a new, grand way to make sense of and justify their own desire to interact
with the computer. And in the standing ovation that concluded the presentation, they could know, they couldfeel, that there was a community of others who
shared their convictions. When they returned back to their university and corporate laboratories to labor away at rhe limited machines of the day, they had a new
sense of who they wete as they worked, a new meaning for the act of working
with and programming a computer.
Conclusion
Among the stiU small community of computer professionals in the 1960S, computers attached to screens and keyboards were working as thought objects; the
compulsive fiddling they occasioned elicited, not only a desire for more, bur a
seatch for intellectual frameworks to justify that interaction and extend it. Interactive computing was occasioning practices that pushed againsr the boundaries of
the instrumental reasoning that put the computers there in the first place. From
within a world in which computers were assumed to be tools with which leaders
have things done, such as directing remote battles, Licklider and his ilk were developing a fascination with interactive computing's "self-motivating"' qualities, and
that fascination pushed them coward other logics, toward the idea of using com-

42

Self-Motivating Exhilaration"

puters to formulate questions rather than answer them, toward understanding

computerS as tools for exploration through symbolic manipulation rather than for
conquering known territories or organizing human affairs into a predictable grid.
Licklider and Engelbart's efforts are symptomatic of how a felt experience-computer holding power-became the occasion for the search for new frameworks of
meaning for making sense of that experience, frameworks that would eventually
come to shape the development of the machines themselves. Noninstrumental
visions of computing. where activity was "self-motivated" tather than strictly goaldirected, were emerging from within an institutional framework heavily dominated by forms of instrumental reasoning thar separated means and ends,
The significant point here is that personal experiences with interactive computing were shaping the development of new ideas as much as new ideas were
driving new uses of computers. Neither Licklider's nor Engelbart's writings fully
add up as empirical or philosophical statements; Licklider oddly mixes cold war
instrumentalism with gestures towards other logi<:s, and Engelbart's demo offered
its audience a way of making sense of computing that exceeded Engelbart's theorization of it. Engclbart painted a picture of a pure mind-world, a neat, hierarchically organi:<;ed domain inside the compurer screen, yet what his audience walked
away with was a strong sense of possibility about what interactive, non-goaldirected computing could be like, whether or not the end point of augmented
intellect was ever reached. And the demo may have worked for his audience
buause most of them alteady had had at least small tasces of interacting with
a <:amputer. (It may have been the physical presence of others in the audience
with a shared experience-che compulsive desire for computer interaction, and
the knowledge rhac one was in the physical presence of others who shared that
desire-that made the demonstration so compelling; after the demo, the compulsion to interact with the machine no longer needed to be seen as a random
oddity or weakness; being present at the demo gave one a new set of publicly
:l\lllilable meanings to atradl that experience to.)
In sum, what one sees in the 1960s is the <:omplex interaction of big ideascold war and managerial forms of instrumental reasoning-with actual face-roface experiences with technologies, te<:hnologies thar the big ideas paid for and
informed, in ways that sometimes reinforced each other but also sometimes
created tensions between experience and formal plans, tensions that hinted at
alternate directions. In the next decade, as other habits of thought fueled both
by social ferment and longstanding traditions swirled through the culture, those
llCw habits of thought would also in their own way interact with the developing
COmputer world and leave their imprint on the ways in which computers were
irnagined and built,

43

"Sdf"Motivating Exhilar.uion"

Romanticism and the Machine

11,e
The Formation of the Computer Counterculture

11

research.
resarch. Rather,
Rathet, Brand was linking the experience of~self'motivating
of~self-motivating exhilara
exhilararioII~
to
a
creative
kind
of
pleasure.
If
Engelhart
was
for
rhe
most
part
rrying to
rion~
ple3sure.
the
trying
use
UiC computers to enact
enacr an electronic version of Dideror's
Diderot's encyclopedia, Brand,
like much of the counrerculture,
counterculture, was building an association with something
rradirionally romaN!;'
romantic sense of pleasure that
that might best be called Byronic-a traditionally
mixed rebellion with a sense of individual creativity and expression.
mixed.

\Vh05O
Whoso would
....ould be
he ~a m~n
nlMl mw;[
Ill\lsr be a nonconformist....
nonoonformin, ... Trust
T nut thrsdf
thyself ... {hal
thai

sciellce.baflling
Kiencc.~ng 5lar.
star. without
withoul paullax,
p.1ra1bx, w,mour
without calculable
alcuhblc elements,
dements, which shoots
aany
~y of
ofbeauly
e,'ell into
source, at once the
beauty C"'cn
inro trivial
ttivi:al and impure actions
acnons ... that
dur 5OUtU.:l.1

csitnce:
genius, of virtlK.:md.
virtue, and of
life, which we call
Spontaneity or
Dr Instinct.'
essence of
ofgenius.
oflik
0111 Sponnndty
-R4lph
-Ralph Waldo
W:aldo Emerson
Emtt$(ln

Introduction: Reench:mtmcllt
Reenchantmenr
Engelb3.rt demo,
In 1971,
1972, four years
rean after the Engelhart
dano, Stewart Brand penned an article
RollilJg Sl01le
Stoue entided
entitled ~Spacewar:
for Rolling
~Spaccwar: F3.n:l.tic
Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death among
Bums,"' Visiting Xerox PARe JUSt
JUSt as its
itS engineers were
the Computer Bums.*
we further
Engelbart's conctpts,
concepts, Brand h2d
had decided, nor
not JUSt
just that comdeveloping some of Engclb:m's
sandals rather than the
puter programmers now sometimes sported 10llg
long hair and sand21s
associated with IBM engineers.
engineers, but
crisp white
whitt shirts,
shirrs, crew cuts,
CUts. and black tics
ties 3SSoo:ncd
that some of them were exploring an appro;lch
computing that
th:u was something
approach to compuring
"11\( general bent
benr of rese:lrch
at Xerox (PARC
research ar
[PARe is] soft,"
sofr.~ Brand
quite different. Ihe
sm:lll and the personal.
personal,
wrote,
wrote. "away from hugeness and centrality, toward the small
individual who
toward putting maximum computer power in the 11:Inds
hands of every individu31
W:l.ntS
it:' Brand's
predicted, for example.
example, the
W:lntS it.Br.l.nd's :lrticle
article now looks quite prescient; it
ir predicted.
decline of record stores in the face of computer-networkdelivered
computer-nerwork-ddivered music and
rile now-legendary
nowlegendary heroes of the early stages
suges of computer
re\'oluquoted many of the
computet rel'olumoS( significantly.
significanrl}', it
ir pointed towards a differClll
set of cultural association.
But, mosr
rion. But.
differenr M:t
computer programmers.
tions for compurers
computers and compurer
ill his
Brand announced this radical revision of the 11le:l.ning
meaning of computers in
tide,
towards Jack Kerouac's
title, with both the name of a compurer game and a nod tow:l.rds
Dlmrma BUlliS.
putTing a game at
ar the
rhe
novel and alternative lifestyle manifesto, Dlmrm
Bmm. By purting
cenrer
computers, nOt
just:loS
rhe arricle,
article, Brand presented compurers,
nor JUSt
as liberating.
liberaring. but
bur as fun,
fun.
cemer of the
:lI1d
and perhaps liberaring bwwse
bewuse they were fun,
fun. ll1is
This was nor Engelbart's Enlighten
Enlightenmenr vision of personal computer use for the serious purpose of solving complex
ment
complc:x
educarional applicarions,
applications, or
business or educational
social problems. Brand did not discuss husiness
project
projecr visions of libraries of the
rhe fmure,
future, or potential
potenrial new dliciencies
efficiencies in scientific
scientifiC

44

Romanticism and Modernity

dul! weight of a highly specialized,
Faced with the dull
specialized. technologinlly
technologically and bureauorgani:<:ed world, ar
at various momenrs,
search of
cntically organi~d
moments, many of us go off in M:arch
aarical1y
alit lives, to bring the magic back,
ways to bring clarion to our
back. to recover what Max
energy, careers,
Weber described as enchantment; and on this quesr
quest we expend energy.
lives.
f:lbric of industrialized
1Wes. Sometimes this impulse simply peppers the social fabric
insrances of individuals suddenly turning to,
societies and comes out in random instances
say; mounrain
mountain climbing or abrupt
abrupr changes of careers or spouses. Bur
ar times
rimes the
say.
But at
impulse
impulse: becomes organi:<:cd
organi~d and can lead to paroxysms of social change,
change. such as
me diverse religious movements
the
mm'emenrs rhat currently
currendy convulse our world.
If religion is one form the search
1
se2rch for reenchantment
reenchanrment can take,
rake. another is
"Self-Reliance"
concept. Ralph Waldo Emerson's ~Sc:lf-ReIiance~
romantic individualism.
individtulism. As a concept,
"Whoso would be a man must
musr be
be a nonconformprovides a concise summation. ~\Vhoso
isr,~
thyist.~ Emerson argued. Resist conformity and consistency and instead,
instad, "Trusr
~Trust thradf,' where the self
"th:l.t science-baffling
science-baRling star, withour
parallax,
scIf,'
sdf is understood as ~that
without parallax.
beaury even into trivial and
without calculable e!cmenrs,
shoots a ray of beauty
withOUt
dements, which shoou
:It once the
rhe essence of genius.
genius, of virtue.
virtue, and of
impure actions ... that source, at
life, which we call Spontaneity or Instinct."l
Descanes's rational sdf
self
Iifc,.
Instinct'-' This is not
nOt Descartes's
and certainly not the classical economist's calculating shopkeeper self:
self; it is a self
predictability, Emerson proclaimed the
rhe
defined
de-6ned exactly against calculation and ptedictability.
thar calls on us to live crearively
creatively beyond
centrality of a dynamic,
dynamic. inner experience that
the
rationality, to apress
ro our own
~ bounds of predictable r.l.tionality,
express ourselves according to
ttllth.'
unique
uruque personal perception of truth.'
But rOmanticism
romanticism is more than jusr a concept. The literary scholars who use
the teon most systematically tend to classify romanricism
romanticism in terms of specific
great authors
rexts; in this sense, romanricisnl
romanticism is understood as a
aUthors and associated texts;
collection of great works or as a period in European history usually placed in rhe
CIOUection
the
tile last two centuries or so. people who have
cenrury.' Yet for the
early nineteenth century.'
other romantic era hallmarks, have
nevet
newr read Emerson.
Emerson, Wordsworth, Byron, or orher
and
consumed
(ales
of
revelation based on inner experitqJcatedly
produced
tales
repeatedly
ence, celebrations of art as what Wordsworth called ~the
"the sponraneous
spontaneous overRow
overAow
romanricism: stories of
of powerful
POwerful feelings," and other characteristic fearures
features of romanticism:
45

rhe Machine
Romanticism and the

outcast wanderers on desper.lte

desperate quests, a fondness for iconoclastic ideas
heroic OUlaSt
presented
authentic-sounding plain language, enthusiasm for the apparently
presented. in aurhenric-liOunding
overchrow of the dead weight of history
hisTory and tradition. So
$0 an alterimpulsive overthrow
mice
undersunding of romanticism has been de....e1oping
developing with a111 more sociologi.sociologinare understanding
cal
slant.
Friedrich
Kittler
sugguu
that
romanticism
is
best
understood
as a set
alslant.
suggeses
discursive1!: practices
available (0
widely through the culture
of discursi....
practicu availabll!:
to and disrributed
distributl!:d widdy
Coli!) Campbdl's
Campbell's nl!:o-Wl!:berian
neo-Weberi:m theory of thl!:
the "romantic ethic's" role in
at large. Colin
modem consumerism is also useful in this regard, though he approaches the
question from a different
dilferent angle than Kittler.
Kin!er. TIle
The poim
point is that the great
grc:I[ romantic
rom,mti,
romanticism in the culture at large,
authors may have been responding to the romamicism
not in texts,
texts
texes, but in society; tats
rather than creating it. llle
The object of analysis is nor
w3y of getting access
a<:<:ess to
to ir.
it. Though it
emetged in the
are simply one way
ir probably first emerged
late eighteenth century (at least ;l<:<:ording
to Campbdl's
Campbell's and Kittler's
Kittlet's accounts),
according (0
<by romanticism has become a kind of cultural toolkit, a grab bag of culin our day
tural habits.
habits, available for use in a variety of comexts,
oontexu, from candle-lit dinners to
thetapy sessions to the 1960s antiwar counterculture.'
therapy
It was in this sense thar,
that, in late-twentieth ceorury
century America, romantic individIr
ualism became attached to, and came to have an impacr
impact on, computer networks
and rheir
theit p1:lce
place in our world.

practical bridges allowing collaboration between di...erse

diverse communirhetorical and ptactical
militaty-industrial-complex and artistic communities.
ties of thought, such as the military-industrial-complex
Third, Turner shows how the New Communalisu,
Cornmunalists, for all
:.Ill their egaliurianism.
egalitarianism,
lhird,
tow:.lrds a:.I kind of elitism
ch;lrismatic
also embodied 2;l contradictory tendency tow2rdS
ditism of ch2rismatic
insiders,:.I
product
of
their
setTing
of
a
boundary
between
those
in
the
know and
setting
insiders, 2 produn
those fallen souls of the old W2ys.
ways. ~Like
"Like the
rhe commun:l.rds
communards of the 1960S;
1960S," he writes,
mose
"the techno-utopians of the 1990S
19\105 denied rheir
their dependence on anr
any but them~the
sel... es.~~
"Ives."9
Once it is,
is. established thu
several decades, rhe
that a pattern repeats itself across se...eral
the
it~ Why
Vlhy did the
me New Communalist rhetoric and
;lnd
question raised is, what sustains it?
endure~ \har
Wh:tt is its appeal
ap~al :tcrosstime and comens?
contexts~ Here I focus on rhe
the
across-rime
practice endure?
migrated
specifically romantic individualist character of the counterculture as it migrated.
into the world of computing. how it stands out against 2a backdrop of various
intO
disaffection. and how it provided ways to mae
make Sl!:nse
sense of and legitikinds of social dis.afF"ection.
ofcompulsive
computet use.
compulsive computer
mate the embodied experience of
Social Disaffection and Shifting Visions of
19605
Computing in the 1960s
moment of Cultural
culmral and political turmoil gener:l.lly
generally referred to as thl!:
the sixThat mOment

Understanding the 1960s

19605 Counterculrure
Its Legacies
Counterculture and Irs
-rbe decisive hisrory
19605 counterculture and the
The
history of the relation between the 1960s
developmem of a computer counterculture is Fred Turner's From Counttrclllturr
Colmtercullurr
devdopmem
ta
Cyberculture."
Turner
points
OUt
chat
there
was
never
a
single,
unified
counterfO C1~rclllturr"
that
nevCf
thought and
culture. It was something composed of several different strains of thoughr
practice. While
politic:!1
\hile the New Left strain carried with it a call to engage the politic:l.1
:!ppararus
apparatus in a broad way, Turner focuses on another distinct strain that he calls
the ~New
"New Communalisu"
Communalists~ who instead of engaging the political system sought to
autOnomous communities
communiries
escape it by transforming consciousness and cteating
creating autonomous
Ir is this
rhis New Communalist strain, Turner arguu,
argues,
devoid of hierarchy or rules. It
the Whok
WlJOle birth
Ellrth Catalog,
ell/lllag, that embraced a
centered around Stewart Brand and rhe
parricular
evemually provide the intdla:rual
intellectual
particular vision of technology and that would eventually
cybetutopian movements of the 1990S.
underpinnings of the cyberutopian
sever:ll key points.
points, First, the 1990S cyberTurner has elegantly demonstrated se\'eral
culture had very strong contilluities
continuities with the 1960s New Communalist mo...emovecultu~
ment, both in rerms
terms of individual participants
patticipants like Stewart Brand and in terms
Se<:ond, in an important contribution to
of intellectual frameworks and practices. Second,
the sociology of knowledge, Turner
Tumer shows how Ill0St
most of this rested on a pranice
practice
creating~network
forums~ in media, think tanks, and conferencu
conferences that
thar build
of creating
~network forums~

46

Romanticism and the Machine

Romanticum

ties (which :l.ccually

actually occurred
occurted roughly berwn
between 1964 2nd
and 1971.)
1972.) had the disaster
dis.aster
its center. Paul Edw:l.rds
Edwards offers Operation
Operarioll Igloo \hite
White
of the Vietnam War at in
II the archetypal example of the horrifying
hotrifying collision of 1960s systems-scienceas
inAuenced computing
compuring with the compla
complex realities and passions Qf the time. Operainfluenced
tion
Igloo
VJ'hite
was
a
giant
computer-based command-and-control system
\hite
:l. gi.mt computer-based.
rion
based in Thailand during the Vietnam Wu
War that gathered data
dara from electronic
rhat data to direer
direct
.ensors hiddl!:n
hidden along the Ho Chi Minh trail and then used that
sensors
near-insranr:meous
were
rhe jungle. Soldiers on the ground wete
near-inst:l.nta.neous bombing strikes in the
supplanted by men in far
fu away closed buildings
bUildings sta.ring
staring at
ar computer tetminals.
terminals. It
W;lJ a case study in hubristic folly; while causing large numbers of usualties
casualTies on
was
rhe effort did nor
nOt Stop
lhe effecti...e
effective military
use of the (r.lil,
trail, and many
milit3ry usc
both sides, the
stop the
now argue irs
its main function was to help blind overconfident
nlilitary leaders
overconfidem U.S. military
teality of the situation on
On the ground....
ground.'Q
to the reality
ir was wirhout
withour councleu
countless small srrugstrugBut the 1960s would not have been what it
gles and shifts
shins throughour
throughom thl!:
the social fabric,
f.1bric, shifts
shins that occurred in work places
gIes
manifesred rhemselves
and homes lasting well into the 1970S. Those struggles manifested
themselves in
the worlds of computing on se...eral
several [evels.
levels. For example, the
rhe centra.li~ed
cenrr:lli:l:ed informamanagement began
tion processing championed by both IBM and Xerox's up~r
upper ffi:l.nagement
to run aground on the shining
social expectations
ex~ctations about work and genshifting sands of sod:l.l
der. By the mid-1970S,
mid-I970S, IBM's earliest push for centrali~ed
centralized ~word
"word processing cendet.
47

Romanticism and the Machine

RolTUJlticism

ters~
ters"

was accused of having c:lUsed

caused some ~disasters~
"disasters" 2nd
and to have
h2ve produced condi_
tions that
th2t some executives recogni:l:ed
2s"dehum:mi%ing:
recognized as
"dehumanizing: The feminist movement
comes up surprisingly frequently in the business press of the time; 21\
an executive
BI4~i,teJj Week th2t
that part of the problem with sequestering secretaries in word
told Business
One used to worry abom
about the career path of secprocessing centers was that "no one
now:' Another executive observed
retaries....
, , Women's lib is affecting thillgs
things now."
reuries..
filce of the team concept a.nd
and women's lib,""
lib."" Upper
that IBM's plnn
pla.n "Aies
"flies in the nce
tha.t
factory-like efficiency in the office wu
was backfirmanagement's
ma.na.gement'S dream
drea.m of a.a docile, fa.ctory-like
ba.ckfir_
generating fricnon
and resentment inMead
ing. genera.ring
friction a.nd
instead of cost-savings a.nd
and profitS,
profitS. As a
result, up a.nd
and down the corpora.te
corporate hiera.rchy,
hierarchy, as digital computers continued to
to
sptod,
a.nd more individuals wete
thert
spread, more 2nd
were having experiences that suggested there
was something wrong with the dominant
wa.s
domina.nt ways of thinking.
In other .:Irenas,
arenas, compUter-related
computet-related visions that in the mid-1960s seemed to
rtalities. Systems
hold much promise were similarly colliding with tecalcitrant
recalcitrant r=lities.
Systenu
science, for example. began
beg:m to loose its high-tech sheen by 1910."
1970." After several
yeus of city governmenrs pouring money into consultants 2nd
and computer sysyears
tems,
urban
crime
and
strife
were
increasing.
not
decreasing.
and the idea that
temS, urba.n
nOt
Ihat
computer systems might be the way to tame me
the unruly complexity of urban life
naive.'J At roughly the same time in academia, criria
critics
was looking increasingly naive."
MIIJ~ Communicatio'l
Commlw;cariolllllld
Amer;mu Empirr)
Empire)
(such:lS
(such
u Herben
HerbeTt Schiller in his 1969 Man
and Amtrican
modern
beg.m to point sharply to a gap between the goals of democracy and modem
began
Cuey theorized
theori%ed the issues in rhe
eady 1910S.
communication sysu:ms."
systems,'" James W. Carey
the ony
19705.
In Ihe
''The Mythos of the Electronic Re,~lution"
Revolution" (197:1),
(1972). he .:Itt:l.ckcd
attacked systems-science-inAutnced appr02ches
approaches to communication, making the case that, for 211
all their
eneeinfluenced
scientific
pretensions,
the
argul1lenrs
were
actually
pseudoreJigious.
His
seminal
scientihc ptetensions.
arguments
pseudoreligious.
1975 essay "A Cultural Approach to Communication" made explicit the distinc~s
comrol on the
tlte olle
tion between communication as control
one hand and communication as
something more hori2:ontal
-nle essay's core distinction-between a
sonlething
horizontal on the other. The
control-:l.[-a-distance (and
"transmission" view of communication with a focus on control-,u-a-distance
which Carey bb.med
culture") 2nd
a.nd aa"rituar
"rituar view wim
with irs
its
blamed for the ~chaos
"chaos of modern culture-)
m~intenance of sh;lred
tlle;lnillgs-has been a.a Sta.ple
st;lple
shared meanings-hu
focus on the generation
genera.tion and maintenance
of academic
a.ca.demic discussions of communication ever since."
The common sense of the culture was not JUSt
jUst growing more skeptiC3.1
skeptical of the
mOte
ba.sic terms through which they were
more grand
gr:l!ld expectations of computers; the buic
easily lump rogelher
understood were shifting.
shifting, In 1961, Licklider could ea.sily
TOgether the use of
computing for winning battles
baltles wilh
with the use ofcomputers
of computers for achieving enlightenBy 1969, Ihat
easy or friction-free,
friction-free. The use of
ment.
ment.lly
that juxuposition
juxtaposition wu
was no longer ea.sy
computers for control and the use
usc for communication
communica.tion and expression no longet
longer
seemed so obviously compatible and were coming to be experienced as in tension
with one anorher.
another.
48

Rom:lllrici~m
Roma.ntidsm

and
a.nd the
rhe Macliine
M~cliine

We are
f;lmously aW;lte
a.re now fa.mously
a.wa.re th;lt
that when Xerox chairman
chairma.n McColough was
enthusiastically imagining the office of the future in terms of efficient
effident celllralizacentralizaAlro Reseatch
. n a handful of his employees were busy at Xerox's Palo Alto
Research Center
tion,
,
in California creating some of the first effectively functioning computers with
nerwork capabilities.
windowing graphical interfaces,
capabilities, McColough and
interfaces. mice, and neTWork
the rest of Xerox's upper management failed to understand the value of these
innovations and thus la.rgely
largely ignored them and allowed
thelll to be copied first
a.llowed them
fitst by
and Macintosh systemS
systems a.nd
and eventually by Microsoft's Windows. Ir
It is
Apple's Lisa a.nd
now known as one of the bigger business blunders of all time and has been much
thar the difference between
discussed elsewhere." Blit
But what's significant here is that
management's view of things and the PARC
PARe engineers' view was
Xerox upper mana.gement's
to a large degree.
and control. The
degree about the rdation
relation between communication a.nd
problem was not thar
th;lt Xerox's upper management was unintelligent but
bur th;lt
m:u they
mey
understood computing and data
processing
through
the
dominant
1960S lens;
da.ta
1960s
like the early military funders
COlllh.mdtrs of ARPA's computing efforts, rhey
they imagined computer
purer communication as a means of control
conrrol over people and
a.nd events at a dist:ance,
dista.nce,
certainty into
illlo the pink.collar
the
mat would bring mathematical
ma.mema.rical ccrta.inty
pink-collar world of mt
as toOls
tools that
front
liont office, as a form
fonn of efficient
tfficient control
concrol across
a.cross space. The PARC engineers,
tnginttrs, by
contrasl, were carrying on Engelba.rt's
Engelbart's and
rowards an
all alternawnmst.
a.nd Licklider's move towards
tive view, viewing computers as less calcula.tors
calcularors than
rivr:
man symbolic manipulators, and
computet
compUter communication as something that should give mOre
more control to users
point of
management more control
conttol over them. 111e
rather than giving mana.gemenc
The dominant poim
view was not that of a manager
oveneeing a vast enterprise;
ma.nager or miliury
military officer ovcrsing
gonls with an imera.crivc
interactive computer
it was that of literate
Iitera.te individuals achitving
a.chieving goals
undet
under their own COntrol.
control.
But
failute of Xerox's upper mana.gemem
manngemetlt to foresee the direction of comBur the failure
broader socia.l
social comext.
context. The
111e cultural and politiputing in the 1970S occurred in aa. broa.der
cal
precipit:ued by tht
the Viernanl
effeces on the
c:a.I crisis ptecipitated
Vietnam War had its effects
tht community of
COmputer
visionaries, juST
011 so ma.ny
many other upecrs
aspects of
computer engineers and visionarits,
just as it did on
the late 19605, the
the society.
socieq'. By me
tht unquestioned enthusinsm
enthusiasm for cold war
wa.r militarism that
(hat h2d
culmnl glue binding together
had previously provided much of the culmral
inrellectuals with
the
cht military-industrial complex
compltx began to weaken; like many intellectuals
scien
university associations,
a.nd scienassocia.rions, substantial numbers of computer engineers and
associated with the countists bega.n
began to be inAutnctd
influenced by the political current~
cutrents assodattd
terCUlture. Most histories
historits of computing make
ma.ke some reference 10
to the symptoms
of this:
Ihis: the programmers working on ARPANET who wore sneakers and ami"'at
appearance of a.a very early
tht Pentagon in 1969: the appea.rance
war pins to briefings at the
em:l.il message in 1972
197:1 on ARPANET-which was then understood a~
~mail
as primari1ya
impeachment of Presidem
President
Ilya military communication
communica.tion system-calling for the impeachmenr
Richard Nixon."

""

49

Romanticism
Roma.nricism and rht
rhe Machine

1,

PARC engineers and scientists

Did it make a difference that Ihe
the pioneering PARe
roonlS
relaxed. counrercultural
countercull'ural style, that they had meetings in rooms
had a famously relaxed,
be:l.n bag chairs instead
insread of conference tables, that they dressed informal1y~
informaJ1y~
full of bean
bur those small stylistic differences
differcnees were sympsymp_
By themselves, probably not; but
broad culmr.l.l
cultural shifts in the society at large, shifts that taken
uken together
tomatic of bro:ld
gtavity in the dominant visions of what computers
helped change the center of gravity
rot and how they might be built and used. By the early 1970S, it had become
were for
easiet to think of computing in ways that were not congruent with the demands
easier
of the cold war era.

Humanist Romanticism

I;

There was more than one alternative

:lltern:ltive to
to cold war militarism. One response to
ro the
compllfer scientistJosq>h
scientisrJoseph Wei.:enb;rum's
Wei2:enbaum's
tensions ofthe time is evidenced in MIT computer
1976 book, umpult,.
Compurrr PoU.'tr
POwrr and
lllla Humllll
HIIlIlan Rtason,
RrllSou, a sweeping critique of the use
usc of
American sociery."
society." Like his coUe.ague
collugue Norben
Norbert "'"einer
Weiner before him,
computers in Americm
c.areer, h.ad grown concerned over
Wei2:enbaum, midw.ay
midway in.a
in a suo:essful
successful sciemilic
scientific ClrCer,
\Vei.:enb.aum,
Ihe scientific
scielltinc community to
to the destructive
desrructive uses of their disthe indifference of the
coveries .and
and inventions. If Weiner's :lrclletypal
scienrinc sin was the
rhe :ltom
atom bomb,
2CCherypal scientific
shadow of the Viernam
War. And, in rhe
case
howe\'er, Wei.:enb.aum
Wei2:enbaum wrote
wrOte in the sludow
however.
Vietnam \V.ar.
the cue
of Viemam,
Vietnam, the problem was less .about
about horrifically
horrincally effective weapons and more
about .aa kind of structured blindness or indifference that enabled horrors to be
.about
Wei2:enbaum cites, for aample,
example, the usc
committed using conventional weapons. \Vei.;:enb.aunl
~operated by officers who h.ad
had not the slightest idea of wh.at
what
of computer systems, oper.ued
zond'
within
which
"pilots
had
wcnt
on
inside
their
machines,"
to
select
"free-lire
well(
m.achines,free-fire .:onespilors h.ad
evcry living thing.thing." And he cites the notorious
notoriou,~ ase
case of Pent:lgon
Pcnragon
'right' to
ro kill cvt:ry
the 'rigll('
computcrs th.at
that listed bombing strikes inside C:lmbodia
computers
Cambodia as occurring in Vietnam,
compmer to
ro mislead members of Congress about
thus using the mystique of the compUter
abom
acrion."
this arguably illegal action."
compurer scientist, Wei.:enbaum
Weizenbaum was nO!
not critical of computers themAs a computer
but of what he saw as a general weltanschauung
weltansch:lUung that had become
becomc :assoassoselves, bur
Wcizenbaum's criticism
critici~m was broad and targeted at
ar
ciated with computers. Yet Wei.:enbaum's
of
his
MIT
colleague~
had
devoted
their
C.:l.reers.
concepts
towards
which
some
concepn
colleagues
Cl.reers.
He saw the notion that human beings could be understood along the model of
compurers-the core conceit of the field of artificial intelligence-as of
computers-the
of:la piece
narrowncs.~ of mind, the
rhe instrumental reasoning
tC:lsoning that
th:ar separated means
with the narrowness
associated with the
from ends, and the inhuman grandiosity
grandiosiry that seemed to be associ:lted
computing weltanschauung.
not. Yet
Yer
Wei2:enbaum's critics sometimes dismiss him as a Luddite.'o
Luddite." He is noe.
Wei.:enbaum's
readers might get this impression, not JUSt
doubr abollt
about
just from his expression of doubt
50
SO

Romanticism and rhe

the Machine

certain aspects
aspterS of computing. bur bec:l.use
because of his loosely romantic
romalllic understand(fl'fain
p.:l.rt associing of human
hum.an creativity, which through the 1970S was for the most part
nature set against
:lgainst technology. Wei.:enbaum
Wtizenb:lutll began his book
ared with a vision of n:l.ture
ated
~obviolls idea" that "science is creative,
creativt, that the creative act
with what he calls the "obvious
equivalent to
ro the creative
Creatlve act in an,
art, [hat
th:l.t creation springs only from
in science is equiv.alem
artis.utonomous
individuals:'" The assumption
assumprion that the archetype ofcreation
autonomous individua1s.~"
of creation is anisric crurion
creation and that such cre:l.tion
creation -springs
"springs only from autonomous
:lutonomous individuals
individu:lls" is
tic
nor.a
but it is an orthodox element of romantic individualism. And,
not a Luddite one, bur
on-en than not, romanticism is thought of:l.S
of:IS :l.ntit:hnological
antirechnological beC:l.USC
because of its
more often
of a vision of narure
nature comr.asted
contrasted with a demeaning. t:l.tionalizing
privileging ofa
rarionali.:ing indusIhe
oiali2:ation. From \Vorclsworth
Wordsworth finding truth
ttllth in the natural simplicities of the
tri;rlization.
Thoreau in his C:l.bin
cabin at Walden
W.alden to
[0 1960S
1960s hippies
Ilippies building
English countryside to Thorea.u
Eng!ish
movel11cnrs often define themselves
themselvcs
Vermanr, rom.antic
romantic movemems
communes on farms in Vermont,
against whar they perceive as the blinkered t:hnica.l
technic.al ration:l.!ity
rationality of the indusrri:ll
3g&inst
industrial
on-en COntrast
contrast with agrieultur.l.l
agricultutal forms of life. By the first hill
half
world. which they often
world,
rwenrierh century,
cenrury, chis
this strain of thought
developed in the
rhe
of the twentieth
thought had been fully de\oe1oped
work of humanist
humanisr critics like Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford (the uttet
latter cited
an important influence)
inRuence) who :l.nributed
:lttributed many ofthe
of rhe ills of the
by Weizenbaum
Wei.:enbaum as m
wilh technology.
modern world
wotld to
ro the forms of consciousness associated with
modem
aJld HUmlln
Hllmalt RrllsoN
Reaso'l indeed belongs in the Ellul/Mumford
Computer POlWr
POwtr lllld
of
its
romanric understanding of the human as in
ill
mdirion,
principally
because
tradition, principilly bce:ausc
roffi:l.lltic
cre.aDve md
and beausc
because of its Hegelian an.alytiCllI
an:llytical merhod
method of identifying a
essence crC<l;rive
_nce
~spirit" in culture th2t
that is apressed
expressed throughout
throughour the society. Yet
Yer
central essence or -spirit~
antral
accusation of Luddite
Luddire is both
barh on
On its face inaccurale-Wei2:enbaum
his critics' :l.ccus;rtion
inaccur.ate-Wei:l:Cnbaum
wa.~ not criticizing computers per se, JUSt particular
made clear
c!C<I;r he was
pa.rricubr uses of them
l'ellingly defensi\"e.
defcnsive. For the most
and specific actions taken in their name-and tellingly
of the book are in Wei.:enbaums
Wcizcnbaum's specific
specinc discussions
compeUing and unique pans ofthe
compelling
and the activities
activiries of those who make and use them.
of the workings of computers md
Programmer~ was
Wei2:enbaum's chapter called Science
"Science and the
rhe Compulsive Programmer
Weizenbaum's
"hackers~ :l.nd
and the felt experione of the first published works to directly address -hackers"
Weizenbaum labels
ence of a certain kind of computer programming. Basically,
BasiC:l.lly, Wei.:cnbaum
exhilaration~ as an addiction akin to
ro ga.mbling.
g:lJllbling. As if in
Licklider's "self-motivating
"serf-motivating exhilarationmon
ro Stew;rrt
Stewart Br:md's
~Spa(ewars" essay, Wei.:enbaum
Wei2:enb.aum observed,
retort to
Br.l.nd's Spacewarsh:l.ve bom"
become "srabJish"d,
est:lblished, ...
.. ,bright
or
\Vhmever computer amen
\Vhenever
c"nteu have
brighr young men of
dishe""led app"arancc,
~Ppe;lr:mce. onen
often with sunken glowing "yes,
e)'Cs, can
c~n be seen sining
al comcom
sitting at
dishevd"d
pura- consoles, their
theit arllls
anns tensed
~nd waiting
linger., already
alrudy poised
poiled
puter
rensed ;rnd
wairing to
ro lire
fi~ their fingers,
ro srrike,
mike,. at
~t th"
the burtons
buttons and keys on which their
~ttenrions SUmS
ltemllO
CO
rheir atrenrions
to be riveled
rivet..d
as"a gambler's
gamblers on th"
Ihe rolling dice. When
\Vhen not so eransJix"d.
translixed, ther
oflen sit a[
~t rabIes
tablel
as
they often
srrewn with computer prinrours
primouts over
O\'Cr which they poee
pore like
Iikr possess..d
poueued students
Studentl of
or
strewn
text. They work until
uneil they
drop. twelley,
rwemy. thirty
at a
~ Clb:llisric
cabalistic rext.
rh"y nurlr
nurly drop,
rhirry houri
hours ~r
~ time.
H

51
5.1

Romanricism and the Machine

Romanticism
Machin"

TIlei. fOOd,
food, if they arnnge
~rr.lnge iI,
it, is broughr
bra lIght to mem:
rhem: cofftt,
coffee, Cohs.
Cokes, und...oiches.
undwichr~. If
Their
possible.lhey
lleep on con
cotS nur the
rhe computu.
few hours-then
possible,
they skcp
computer. But only for a~ If:w
back ro
to rhe console or rhe
the prinrouts.
printouts. Their
"Their rumpled dothes.
clothes, rheir
their unwashed
unwJshed and
b:lCk
unshaven f;lces,
fuu, and their uncombed hair
h~ir all testify
rurify rhar
rlm they arc
oblivious
to their
are
10
bodies and 10
co rhe world in which Ihey
rhey move. They
Thq e~isr.
cxin. at leur
lcut wll"n
when so cn~gro.
engaged,
through and for the
compulers. These
'nlCIC a~
al"C' oompu~r
computer buml,
only mrough
rhe compuron.
bums, compulsive

programme,.."
programmers....
The difference between the compulsive programmer :.lnd
and ~:.l
"; merely dedicated,
dedicned,

11

~
I

programmer," Weizenbaum writes, is thar

that the prohard-working. professional progranlmer,~
fession:!.1 "addresses himself to the problem to
[0 be solved,
soh'ed, whereas the wmpulsive
wmpulsil'c
fessional
mainlY:lS;1Il
opporruniry to interact
inreraet with the Comcomprogrammer sees the problem mainly
as an opportunity
-nle professional
profession:tl regards programming as a means towatds
towards an end, nOI
not
puter.... The
w
iuelf. "
as an end in itself.'''
'Nhereas Licklider tried to
[0 justify his pleasure in pl:lying
playing with computers by
\hereas
Wei7;enhaum-who later
bter
associating it wid,
with goals of efficiently solving problems, Weizenbaum-who
programtllers was based in his own personal expeth:.lt his depiction of programmers
hinted that
computers"-saw it as symptomatic of much that was wrong with
rience wilh
with computerS"-saw
withom concern for the final ends exemplified
exelnplified the indifsociety. Programming without
lhat lead to
ro destnIcti...e
destructive folly like masference to long-term human consequences th:.lt
Vietnam. Prcfiguring
Prefiguring Edwards's argument about d,C
the
sive bombing campaigns in Vielllam.
World:' Weizenbaum argues that the appeal of computers is precisely
"Closed World;
w
abstract, solipsized "worlds~
"wodds shut
shU! off from the messy
me.s.sy
that they offer a fantasy of abseracr,
complexit}'
thar can be made 10
to operate according to any rules
complexity of reality, worlds th:.lt
gains a kind ofgodlike camrol
over
rhat the programmer wishes; the programmer gains:.l
COntrol O\'er
Ihat
rhe larger.
latger, hum:.ln
human one.
rhis world, but only insofar as he or she disconnects from the
this
enabled the
rhe
Weizellbaum. the
rhe compulsive desire to interact
intenct with computers eml.bled
For Wcizenbaum,
tinkering-rhe technological innovation without regard for human conmindless tinkering-the
sequence-thar W:.lS
was the object of his concern. Hacking was
W:lS the
rhe opposIte
oppoSIte of arc..
art.
sequence-th:.at
"Soft" Computing:
The Emergence of the Computer
COll1puter Counterculture
For Stewart Brand, however,
however. computing potentially \VilS
["'IS art. \Vhile
While Weizenbaurn
Weizenbaum
was formulating his critique of conventional computer science, a computer counest:lbterculture was developing which offered :.aa parallel critique of the computer estabthar took
rook an opposite
opposire t:.ack
rack pre.:isely
precisely on the issue of~compulsive
of"compulsive
Hsbmenl, but one mat
lishment,
aforementioned essay in Ro/fing
Rollillg Stone
Stoue w:.as
was both
programmers.wStewart Brand's :.aforementioned
progr:l.mmers.~
indic:uive and probably
inRuential. Brand took the same raw material as WeizenWeiZCIV
indicative
ptobably inAuential.
baum-computing conducted compulsively for ilS
its own s:ake-and
sake-and aniculalcd
articulated
it completely differently,
dilTercnrly, as something that might free us insre:.ad
instead of perpetu:.ate
perpetuate
52

Rom;llitiei.'n :and
and the Machine
Muhine
Romanticism

enslavement. Brands
Brand's ~computer
wcomputer bums~
bums" were nOI
not porrrayed
as Weizenb:.aum's
Weizenhaum's
our ensla~mem.
portrayed :.as
addicts but as vision:.ary
visionary computer be:.atniks.
beatniks.
lonely addiCts
This move was
w3S not without ilS
its intdlectu:.al
imellectual deep b:.ackground.
background. Not all of the
Licklider
attendees at the 1940S Macy conferences followed Norbert Wiener and LickHder
Bateson and M:.arMardle world of computer science; amhropologists Gregory Bueson
into the
garet Me:.ad
Mead were ~~
also in :.arrendmce.
attendance."os Bateson in particular would continue using
pret
cyben'etirJ Inro
into rne
the 1970S in ways that would come
COme ro
to seem
Seem quite
quire at odds
the term cybernnlcs
w
"Closed World~
World l:.ater
Iarer describe:d
described by Edwards. Bueson,
Bateson, who
with the Strangelovian ~Closed
to
ro my knowledge never c:.ared
cared much about computers,
compurers, went on ro develop both
of holisric
holistic ideas :.about
about systems theory,
theory. ecology, and the hurn:.an
human mind and
a set ~f
rhose ide:lS.
a:.a partlC~brly
particularly effective, :.aphoristic
aphoristic pop writing style for presenting those
ideas.
coumercultural period,
petiod, the most f.amous
famous of which
Bateson's tr.l.de
trade books from the countercultural
lbtesons
StcpJ to
10 'UI
an Ecology.
Ecology o~
ofMind,
written in a highly :.accessible,
accessible, engaging way
was Sups
Mind. were wtitten
mat eschewed :.academICJargon
academic jatgon :.and
and reference; Ihe
the sryle
style was th:.at
that of:.a
of a kind of h
hip,
that
ch"
.
lp,
of
the
voice
of
the
British
gentleman
amateur.
Highly
abstracr
charming
version
. :.armmg versIon
VOlce
abstraci
about sYStems
sysrems theory, for example, are put in the
lhe mouth of:.a
of a six-ye:.ar-old
six-year-old
ideas abo.1it
~eas
charring wilh
with her father." Hence,
Hence. college srudenlS
students and literate
Hterate hippies :.across
across
girl ch:.arnng
and even some precocious high school students,
srudents, could curl up in :.aa bean
the bnd..
land, :.ln~
me
bag cha.lr
chair With
with one of Batesons
Bateson's books and make some sense of it without
wirhout the
rhe
~
guidance
of
professors;
B:lteson
was
an
anti-Derrida.
Bateson
gwdance
11lis was the intellectual style that bec:.ame
became mosr
most powerfully associ:.ated
:Issociated with
This
Communalisr wing: accessible, Smarr
smart but
the
counrerculture, particularly its New Communalist
me.counterculture.
plain-spoken, dismissive of tradition. Someone like Weizenbaum would make

Dostoyevsky and project :.la sense of

frequent references to classic literature like Dostoye'l$ky
frequ~nt
warning a~ut
about a f.a.llen,
fallen, ddude~
deluded world. Bateson,
COntr3St, would boil things
=~ng
B:.lteson, by COntrast,
easily repc:.at:.able
repeatable aphoTlsms
aphorisms :.and
and provide :.aa sense or
down to eaSily
of revelatory simplicity.
texr for the 1960s
COUnterStewart Brand's Wholt
W/,ole EilTth
Ellrt/, Catalog, the defining text
Ste~art
[960s Countetculture's
approach to
to technology.
technology, adopted much of Bateson's style and eventually
cultures "pproach
to the St:uus
StatuS ofguru. In the Catll/og.
Call/log, Brand :.added
added to Batesons
Bateson's :.accesacceselevated him 10
.mle
but
thoughdUI
1
01>
''I
'
f
thoughtful
style
a
nonlinear,
playful
form
of
presentation
that
mixed
lible
desc' .
sry e a no mear, p.....yru ronn 0 present;arion that mixed
toilets with politiC:.l1
political tracts,
novel. :.lnd
and iconocl:.astic
iconoclastic
T1ptlOns of nonRush toilelS
traclS. a novel,
descriptions
journalism: it was in the CllIalog
::,malism;
Cilla/og that most of the United States finally learned
how astronauts
to t~e
the bathroom.
b:lthroom. On the olle
one h:.and,
hand, the style expressed the
.~
aSt~"~utS wenr
went~1O
-everything
related" holism of Batesonian
BateSOnian syslems
systems theory. But
Bur the Cilia/og
Catalog was
also
rythlllg is
IS rdared
alao made for browsing. Ceminly,
Certainly, the accessible,
accessihle, cluttered style
sryle of the Cali/log
~ade
CDtillog
abared
consumer culture; re:.ading
reading the
Who something with the general style of the COnSumer
Whole
Earth CilIll/og
Calalog in the early
l1luch the S;lme
same way
th
It Ellrt.h
e:.arly 1970S was probably fun in much
char browsmg
browsing the Sears
Se:lrs catalog was
rhe 1890s. Bur
But when it
if first appeared
appeared,
~t
w:.as in the
Whole
Earll,
Cnlalog
stood
aparr
from
the
resr
of
the
consUl1let
culture
in
the
Un Wi,Die Eilrth Catalog
:.apart
rest
consumer
i~
images, it w:.as
was infonnainforl1l:lUnPOrtant
f!Onant ways; printed in black and white with
wirh grainy im:.ages,

53

Romanticism and the

rhe Machine

I ,

tion
ddiber.ately lacked
nOt about consuming products for
don rich,
rich. deliberately
I~c:ked glitz,
glin:, and was nor
leisure time
dnu: 2criviries
aCtivides but-in its own mind at leau-about
least-about understanding
undersnnding and
building things for everyd:lY
everyday life. To a whole generation
generacioll of readers, and still to
[0
frankness and
some extent today,
today. this kind of writing is a breath of fresh air; its fnmkness
condescending, amiandw:u an antidote to
thoughtfulness was
co the breezy,
breezy. sUg:lrcoated,
sugarcoated, condescending.
intellectual tone
mne of much of the pop media, whereas its
irs accessibility contrasted
with the jargon-ridden, mystified styles that
thar pc.rmeatt:
permeate our academic,
:academic. government,
and corporate bureaucracies.
probably the
that disseminated
It was probilily
me Whole EMIl,
Earth C<lla/og
Catalog mat
disseminau:d many of the
rhe tropes
countercultural writing. A studied usc
use
now emblematic of New Communalist coumercultur:tl
of plain, conversadonallanguage
conversarionallanguage was common, signaled by the artful occasional
use of obscenities,
obsccnities, more for humor than to
[0 shock or express anger. The Catll/og'S
Catalog's
statement of purpose begins, "We ate
geT used to it."
statemenr
are as gods and might as well get
it.~
usc of conversational plain language-"might
language~"might as well get used to it~
itO-often
The use
-often
functioned to humanize what
whar would otherwise come across as
a.s almost biblical
as gods." In this way, undeniably grand statements
statementS about
abom
grandiosity: "We
"\Ve are a.s
abstractions, about mind, society, the ~whole
"whole earth"
earm" could be presented in a disarmingly appealing way.

flip. ioonocla.s_
iconoclasebullient and srunllingly
Stunningly effective
elfecrive rewriting of the technical into 2a Hip,
tic,
amusing,
and
sometimes
poignam
style.
Oc. amusing..and
poign:mt
As :la student :lnd
and drifting young aspiring professional in the mid-19 60S,
0s,
Nelson published :la few pieces and gave sOlne
advocated an
some public talks
t.a1k.s that advoc:lted
Engelbartian emphasis on using computers to
to create and manipulate linked t(:Xes.
texts.
These early pieces :Ire
are largely of a piece with the Licklider/Engelbart strain of
comains the first published use
usc of the Term
hY}lulat,
thought. A 1965 article thar
that conuins
term J'yptrtul,
for
engineering piece,
or example,
ex.ample, looks at first glance very much like 2a &irly
fairly typical enginuring
assembly.~" In keeping
proposing 2a system for ~personal
"person.al filing and
:lnd manuscript a.ssembly.~17
coins a technical term for his proposed syswith classic engineering form, Nelson coins:l
rem (or
eleerronic documenrs,
documents, which is easily turned into :In
an acronym:
for handling electronic
Evolurionary List File structure
Licklidet and Engelbart,
Engelbart. Nelthe Evolutionary
srructure or ELF. Like Licklider
son distinguishes his appr02cll
approach from the mainstream of the day
d:ly by emphasizing
"Rarely," Nelson writes, ~does
Hdoes the
the unpredictable quality of mental
ment.al processu.
processes. ~R.arely;
oudine [of a project}
projectJ predict well what headings and sequence will create
original outline
desired... If
writer is really to be helped by an automated system,
the effeces
effecu desired....
[f a
:l wrirer
than retype and transpose;
it ought to
to do more th2n
rranspose; it should stand by him during
the early
urly periods of muddled confusion.
scr.aps, fragments,
confusion, when his ideas are
arc scraps,
fTagrnents,
designs.~"
phrues,
phrases, and contradictory overall designs.
'While
th:.t echo Licklider and Engelbart,like
Engelbart, [ike
\Vhile Nelson mentions potential uses th:lt
lCientific
farther, suggesting dut
that this sysscientific or legal research, he pushes things
things:la bit farcher,
tem
historians or students of
Shakespeare." He hinu
at a fondIan could be used by histori:lns
ofShakespeare."
hints at:l
ncaa for the playful non-Latinare
"zipDeSS
non-utin:lte language
langu:lge by proposing 2a system he calls ~zip
is
focused
on
the
lIision
pered"
lists.
More
than
Licklider
or
Engelbart,
Nelson
peud~
Licklidet
vision of
just managing dara,
writing. "To
an individual who is, not JUSt
data, but wri/iug.
~To design and evaluate
&)'Items
asserts, "we
~we need
nud to know what the process of writsystems for writing.~
writing." Nelson aSSerts,
ins
is:')O And writing.
writing, aceording
to Nelson, is nOt simply typing words into a systog U.~ro
according ro
tem,
nor
is
it
a
predictable
ptocess
of, s.ay,
Wriring
~,
:l
process of.
S:ly. following a pregiven outline. Writing
iI
~ a process of gradual discovery that invoilles
involves ~b:llancc
"b.alance of emphuis,
emphasis, sequence of
interrelating poims,
points, rexture
eontinues,
~terrelaring
texture of insight, rhythm, etc,"
etc.~ In a foornote, he continues,
.JI unde~stand
understand that this acwum
account is reasonably
writer! as Tolstoy,
re2sonably correct for such writers
Winston
KatherinC' Anne Porter. 1110se
Wi~ston Churchill and Katherine
-nlose who can
C2n stick to a prior
r.1ithfully, like ):1I1Ies
Outline fuithfully,
O~tIine
James Fennimore Cooper, tend to
to be either hacks or prodilies, 2nd
and don't need this system......
JIts.
system.~" NeiTher
Neither Licklider nor Engellxlrt
Engelhan: could ever
semence like thaT.
the Iitet:lry
literary refetences
references and the artfUl
have produced a:l sentence
that_ Both me
artful
that
distinguishes
Nelson
rhetorieal
dodge
regarding
Cooper
point
to
something
rberoric.al
poim
th:lt
and Engelbart;
che craft of
&om Licklider :lnd
Engelb...n; he is fascinated with, and skilled at, the
"'riting.
'firiting.
n

..

Ted NelS011
Nt/wlI and Computer Lib/Dream Machines
CaM/og brought a new rake
take on technology to me
the counterIf the Whole
Whok Earrh
Earth ullalog
counter
culture generation, Ted Nelson's Computer Lib did the ume
same for computers, with
lasting impact. Among computer enthusiasts, Nelson was the central figure in
building an association
inter.aCfive computing and coumerculrural
associarion between interactive
counrercultural style.
hypulcxl in the early 1960s and in 1967 coamhored
He coined rhe
the term lJyp~rtext
coauthored a ptOproposal for a computer
com purer editing system with Brown professor Andries Van Dam, a
friend from Nelson's undergradu:lte
undergr.Jduate days (and one of the attendees who would be
so deeply imprc.sw:l
impressed by Engelban's
Engelbart's 1968 demo).
Nelson has never been particularly
panicularly successful either technically or in business;
to
software or business with which he has been
[0 my knowledge, no functioning sofTware
directly associated has ever endured. Arguably, his key role in the ellolution
evolution of
compuring-and this
computing-and
mis is nOt
not for a second to downplay his influence-is in his role
as a writer. Nelson is a m:lgnificent
magnificent and disrinctive
distinctive prose stylist, and in a sense his
powtr of the literary to change the world. Although Nelson
career is proof of rhe
the power
Engelbart and Licklider, by rhe
the
was elearly
dearly awate
:lw;ue of and influenced by the likes of Engdbart
enrhusiastic:llly counrerculwraJ.
early 1970S his tone and style became
bec2me enthusiastically
counrercultural. Licklider
and Engelbart.
Engelbart, though they were somewhat interested in using computers play~
playfully, generally used a language inflected by the turgid technocratic talk charac;
charac~
bureaucracies. In sharp conrrast,
COntrast, Nelson created an
teristic of military-industrial bureauct:lcies.
teriscic
54

Rom:mticism
M~chine
Romanticism and the Mac:hine

As the 1960s progressed, Nelson came into Contact

various avant-garde
.As
contact with v2rious
av:t.nt-garde
as~umption that art 2nd
and engineering
beell ch.allenging
challenging the typical
typic.al assumption
artists who had been
55
S5

Romanricism
Ronunricism and the Machine

u:lmple. besides creating

creadng controverwere opposites. Composer John Cage, for example,
4 '33~). was
wou fascinated
fucinated with technology.
sial compositiolls
compositions (perhaps most famously 4'33"),
inspiration, Lewis Mumford,
Kathleen Woodward has contrasted Weizenbaum's inspiration.
Cage:"~If
If for Mumford, the values associated with technics are imper.
imperwith John Cage:
sonality. regularity, efficiency, and uniformity, for Cage the
rhe values are heterogenesonality,
HI '
ity, randomness,
randomness. and plenitude. These are also the
[he values he associates with art.
art:'l>
11,is line of thinking about
abollt technology and art led (0
to a number of European and
This
KlUver, Robert Rauschenberg.
Rauschenberg, and
York-based efforts. For example,
example. Billy Kluver,
New Yorkbased
15166, which held exhibiuhibi
others founded Experiments in Art and Technology in 1966,
dOnS
years. 1I In 1970,
15170, Nelson himtions in and around New York City in subsequent years."
self wrote an online, hypertext:
hypettext catalog for an exhibition titled
tided H$of"tware,H
"Software; which
computer- and electronics-related installations. some of which were creinvolved computer
mhers by engineers, and some who straddled both worlds, like
ated by artists, others
M IT's Architecture Machine
M.:l.chine Group."
Group.'"
Negroponte, then head of MIT's
Nicholas Negropome,
Nelson may
m.:l.Y not have been cemral
eenrral in these circles. but he mOSt
most likely gained
g.:l.ined
First. these groups encouraged him to arradr
attack the
some inspiration. of twO kinds. First,
assumption that art and computer technology were opposites. Second, they per
perbecoming a traditional comhaps suggested an alternative career path. Instead of
ofbeooming
governmenr, someone
puter expert working for corpon.tions,
corporations. univenities,
universities, or the government,
intersection
might develop a name for themselves as a gadfly or iconoclast at the imencccion
of some of these institutions; one could operate via
vi.:l. what Fred Turner calls net
~net
work forums
forums~ that used the terminology and
:lnd authority ofone
[0 build links
of one world to
of the artist-rebel and the authority
with another. Towards this end.
end, the persona or
of high technology might be combined instead of
or being thought of as opposites.
While
\Vhile rethinking the relation between art and technology, however, the New
still remained archmodernists,
arch-modernises.
York-based experimcmaJ
Yorkbased
experimental artistic community still
expecting art (0
to take risks and be challenging.
ch:lllenging. It was the San Franciscobased
Francisco-based
counterculture community with Stewart Brand at its cemer
center that provided a more
popular, inviting approach focused on a warm kind of playfulness and accessible
I5I60s, whether through rock festivals like Woodstock, new
style. And by the late 1960S,
Rolliug S,ant,
StOUt, or simply in the dorms of college campuses across
publications like Rolling
coul\tercultural ethos was Widely
widely available. This
11,is became
hccame Nelson's
the land, this coumercultural
influence.
primary stylistic inAuence.
It was tWO years after Brand's 1972
19'7:1. Rolling Stone
Stont piece first publicized the
th:ol.( computing could be countercuJrural
th3t Nelson came our with his
notion that
coumerculrural that
norion
COtllPUftT Lib/Dream
Lib/Drtam Macl,ine$."
Mad,illl~s." 'Nhile
While the larger counterculture
magnum opus.
opus, Computer
lIery much in decline
was at the time
rime very
dedine and paid little attention.
attention, ComputeT
Computer Lib had
a profound impa.ct
imp:tct on the small but energetic circles of people who were.
were, Ot
or who
tWO decades, it has been
become. involved with computing. For the last
l:tlt twO
might become,
Kapot (the designer of
common to encounter computer professionals like Mitch Kapor
56

Romanticisrn and the Machine

Romanticism

LotuS 1...3
1-:1,-3 and cofounder of the Electronic Frontier
Fromiet Foundation), who say NelLotUS
son's book changed
~changed my life:'"
life.~" (In the mid-15l8os,
sOn's
mid-1980S, Nelson claimed to have encountered at least fifty
nfty other people who told him the same rhing.)"
thing.)11 It is impossible
to establish exactly how widely read Computtr
COIllPUftT Lib was, but it seems likely that
lO
anendance at the West COUt
Coast CompUter
Compuret Faire and similar now'
nOwmost of those in attendance
15I70S had at least some familiarity
f.lmiliarity with Nelson and his
legendary venues of the 1970S
Xerox PARC during
work, and Nelson himself reportS glowingly on a visit to Xetox
period.1I Nelson frequently published essays in science and computet
the period."
compUter journ:als and served for a time as editor of one of the lirst
magazines.
nals
nrst pop computer magazines,
Crtatil't Computing." But it was Computer Lib that seems to have had such a
Crtlltivt
~rhe most
mOSt
fonnative impact. The book has been in all seriousness described as "the
H
noo
important
book
in
the
history
of
new
media.
jmpOnant
....
CompUltT Lib was essentially a transposition
COUIlComputtr
rntnsposition of the style, format, and countCfcultural
\VJ'olt Eard,
Clltlliog into the wOtld
rerculrural iconoclasm of the \Vho/t
Earth Ullliog
wodd of computers.
computers."o,
Lib. Nelson had completely abandoned
ab.:lI1doned
By the rime he was working on Compuur
umputtr Lib,
all hints of the technical style of Licklider and Engelbart.
Engelhart. Near the beginning of
the book, Nelson draws a distinction between
hctween the computer profes.sional
professional and the
me
~computer fan,H
fan,w that is,
"computer
someone who :apprm..le;s
appreci,u~ the opOolU,
options. lUn,
fun, elOCitemem.
fiendish &scinWon
fasdn~don of
wmeone
uciremem. and 6endish
compute~
....
Somehow
the
idea
is
abroad
thar
computer
activities
are
uncrunve,
compu~ ...
me 'dn :abroad thaI compureT acrivirie;s uncrcarive.
as comp:lTed.
~y, with nxaring
rotating dty
day against
fingen until it becomes a potpot.
:u
romparnluy.
againsI: your lingers
false. ComPUler$
Computers involw
involve imagilUrion
imagination and creation
at the highcalegoric.ally f:abe..
This is o.legori~Jy
creadon at
level. Computen
Compule~ an
are an
~n in~ent
involvement you an
c~n rully
really get inro.
into. rcgardles.s
regardlen of)"OUr
of your
est Ievd.
welcome to
to Ihe
rhe computer
compurer world.
world, damneddamne<ltrip or your karma.... THEREFORE, _kome
1101ppened. &u
gut we, the compuleT
comporet people.
peopk are
rhing thaI
that has ever happened.
est and craziest thing
nOt
others ....ho
who are CT4~
crazy 10 let us hawaii
have all this fun
run and power to
to
nOI crazy. IIlr is you omen
ourselves. COMPUTERS BELONG TO ALL MANKIND."
ou~ehu.

The rationalist,
rationa.list, technical jargon was gone and replaced by a fUll-throated
fuJl-tllroated counpatt Tom Wolfe, part HaightAshbury,
Haight-Ashbury, and parr
part political flyer.
Ctrculrura.lism:
rerculruralism; part
Byer.
Which is not to say that Compuur
Computer Lib lacked subsra.nce.
substance. Mixed in with
:tre concepts and
descriptions of specific machines and computer languages are
computer use
usc thar
that were then unusual but have since become comapproaches to compUter
monplace. User-friendly illterfaces,
interfaces, small personal-sized
personalsi2ed computers, mice, graphic
proceuing. email,
email.
interfaces, and noncomputarional
noncompurarional uses of computers like word processing,
advQC:tted. In
In one of
ate all elaborately explained and advocated.
multimedia, and hypertext arc
many prescient passages, Nelson attacks a Bll$ine$$
Businw Week
Wak piece about~1he
aboutlhe Office
[he Future;
dle emergence of computerized offices staffed
starfed by
of the
Future;' which forecast the
centrally located, specially trained word pro.:essing
processing technicians and which prewiJl succeed in [his
dicted th;tt
that the only companies that will
this field will be IBM and
dicted.
Xerox." Nelson goes on;
Xerox."
on:
57

rhe Machine
Romanticism and ,he

Well. chis
this is hogwuh....
hogw.l$h.... Th~
The office of tbe
the furore,
furore. in d>e
the opinion of the
~uthor.
Well
me :luthor.
h.:.vc nothing
noching [0
to do with
the silly compkzitia
complexities of ;lUtortu.nc
~UlOmaric typing.
Iyping. It will}w.",
will have
will h2vc
wid. !:he

screens. :l.nd
SCrttnl,
and

kcyoouds. and possibly

outgoing [c!ten ... All }'OU'
}'OUf
krybc=ds.
pouibly"a printer
prinrer for outgOingkm:n
business infomu.cion
informarion will be callable
[0 the scrun
lieTecn inst:llntly.
inst::lnrly. An all.cmbn.cing
aJl.cmbt::lcing data
darn
c:oJl:oble to

III

structure will hold evay

ItJltuaJ-in:l. c;l.r'.
uriStructure
every form of informuion-numcricaJ
informacion-numerical and tCKtual-in:l
cDdk
dHnk:l.ga; and you, the
U$ef, whatever your job tide.
rove your
cndlc oflink:ogu;
rh... liS.
ride. may quickly ~

ITom Licklider's comfol'f2ble

comforrable
slaying iconoclastic stance
~ying
st;lnco: sharply distinguishes him hom
association with the military-industrial
associ:lcion
milit;lry-indusrrial complex. And Nelson pokes fun at the
tho:
artificial
builders"; for Nelson, computers arc
artilicial intelligence community as "God builders~;
are
not machines that think on
On their own but tools
cools that people use
usc to pursue theit
their
dreams-"Dream
Machines."
clreams-"Dream Machines."

Kreen rhrough
through the endre
arC cncidcd
cnridcd to scc:.
ICe. You will h.:a~
have
screen
entire infornl:l.tion-Jp:l.cc
infomwiolHp3CC' you arc

II

to
ttl

1"11i5
prognosdcation. He even :mricipatts
This is :m
an extraordinary bit of prognostication.
anricipatu bU7;%
bU2;2; words;
eighteen years b,-Jote
before the phrase web surfing
swflllg spread throughout the culture, Nel8If compUters
rhe future.
surfbo;trds.~"
son wrote, "If
computers are the wave of the
future, dispb.ys
displ:l.Ys arc
are [he
the surfbouds,"4'
grandiose notions about computers' liberato,/,
potential
And Nelson articulates
OIrticulOlCes gr:andiose
Iiberatory potenri:1i
that later became standard.
stand:ltd fare
thatHknowledge, underunder
dur
f.are among netizens,
nemens, claiming (h;.u"knowledge,
standing and freedom can all be advanced by me
the promotion and deployment of
computer display consoles {with
(with the right programs behind them):"
them).~"'
11le
Compufcr Lib shares much with both B:l.teson
Bateson and the Whole
Wllole
The style of Computer
EnrtJ, Cualog.
Catalog. The book cridcizes
criticizes and pokes fun :U
at the mystifying
mysrifying jargon in
Earth
which computers were then typically described. ~I believe in calling a spade a
sp2de-not a personalizcd.
personalized earth-moving
eareh-moving equipment module,~
module: Nelson quipped."
spade-not
quipped."'
The language is deliber.luly
deliberately playful and !\On-Latinate;
non-Larinate; computers are described
as "wind.up
Br:Uld, Nelson frequently uses me
the colloKwind_up crossword punles."
puzzles." (Like Brand,
quial
particularly effectively to soften grandiosity, rhereby
thereby disarming
quia! particulatly
disanning the reader's
~When I saw my first computet.~
computer,~ he recounts.
recounts, ~l
~J said
skepticism: ~\Vhen
&:lid 'Holy smoke,
this is the desriny
counterculmtal
destiny of humankind:")'
humankind."')"' And a loose sympathy
symp,uhy with counteTCulturai
boaSTS of having been at Woodpolitics and iconoclasm is also present; Nelson boasts
stock,'
srock,'" associates his critique of the computer profession with the feminist cri
critique of the medical profession in Our Bodies,
Bodiel, Ourst/vo,1O
Ollrsdvel,l'> inserts a solemn pae:1ll
paean
to no-growth
nogrowth economics,11
2nd putS
puts a black'power
r:lised fist on the cover.
economics," and
black-power style raised
And the
handdrawn graphics.
graphics, paste-up style, and self-published
self.published originme book's hand-drawn
antiestab
Nelson brags about eschewing mainstream publishers-all bespeak an anoestab-

lislullent
lishment senriment.
sentiment.
"Spacewar~ piece, the
filct that people enjoyed
el~oyed playing
rhe simple &ct
In Brand's ~SpacewarK
with computers was an :uronishing
ide.1. Nelson's Computer Lib gready
asronishing enough idea.
exp:lIlds
assoei.1ting ~self-motiV:lting
"self-motivating exhilaration" (wh:lt
(wh.1t Nelson ails
clills
expands on this, :lssociating
~fiendish fascination"),
nOt JUSt with pl:ly,
play, but wim
with ~imagil\2tion
"imagination and cte:loon
creatiOn at
"fiendish
f.ascin:ltion~), not
clearly suggest that
dlat computercompurer'
the highest level."
level_KNelson was
wu perhaps the first to dnrly
virtuality was, not
nOt JUSt
system for rational exploration in the Enlighten
enabled virruality
jUSt:la syStem
Enlightenment sense, but potentially :In
an ecstatically pleasurable activity. Nelson's emphasis
emphasiS
lUll brellk
on play and personal expression thus allowed for a full
break from the stiff
sriff Cw
Cartesian mechanistic rationality that Engelbart was
wu still rooted in, and his dragon58

Nelson and the

tI,e Romaneic
Ted Nelron
Romantic PUSOIJa
Persona of
IIJ(
Rebd Hero
the Visionary Rebel

do no prognmming."
programming."

Ronunrici5m and the

che Machine
Ronunricism

someone's life~ No
book about
the course of someone'slife~
How could a slim hook
ahout computers change che
doubt there is something comic about the idea of people sitting at
ac computer conwles
imagining
themselves
as
Byronic
heroes;
one
has
to
approach
the notion of
soles
:os
to
romanticized computing with a sense of irony. But one way to
to make sense of this
ronunticized
is to rhink
chink of rom:.lnticism
:.Iesrhetic or a phiphi.
is
romanticism as a social fonnation,
fonnaoon. not JUSt
juS[ an .aesthetic
lo.ophy. We can think, not
nOt just of people like Byron and other romantic figures,
losophy.
ligures,
but of the readership of Byron,
were in a sense bored
By ton, more than a few of whom wete
burc:.lucrats, people widl
with relative material suriry
security suffering from alienation in
bure.aucrats,
their narrow, speci:l1ized,
lind rechnical
technical professions,
lifespecialized, and
profes.sions, dreaming of a different lifo:looking
recnchantment. One might be able to trace
ioolcing for teenchantment.
rr.ace .aa fairly
f.airly direct line from
hom
lOme
literature-Goethe's young
lOITIe of the earliest masculine heroes
ho:roes of romantic literarute-Goethc's
Werther, say-onwatd
say-onward to
to the protagonists of cyberpunk novels, typically midlevel technical employees who've
who'vo: spent a large pare
parr of their lives sitting at com.
computer consoles engaged in nurow,
rasks and then in the COUtR
course of the
narrow, technical tasks
leory
advelltures.
srory have dramatic adventures,
It's
Jr's entirely appropriate that
m:u Nelson dubbed his proposed ideal hypertext
I)'Item Xanadu,
XOInadu, after the imaginary pleasure palace
palaec in the romantic writer
-rstem
Khan.~K Nelson's style and approach
Coleridge's opium-induced poem ~Kubla Khan.
Coletidge's
malc
rhe emphasis on truth discovered in
makee heavy use of romantic tropes.
tropes, From the
to
personal exploration, to
ro the
me celebtation
celebration of dreams, visions, and revolution, ro
to the Straregic
strategic use of vernacular
the suspicion of technical rationality, and ro
vernaculat language,
crafted his own version of onhodox
orthodox romantic style. Nelson's
guage. Nelson has cr.lfto:d
Thoreau or
enthusiasm for technology certainly
ccrtainly disringuishes
distinguishes him from, say, Thoteau
Wordsworth (who famously wrote in "Timurn
natlltC chen/To
then/To me
"Tinturn Abbey;"For
Abbey,""For nacure
\!fas all in aIL")
originlll romantics were never opposed to technological
'Nas
all.~) But the original
advances in me
the same fashion
mshion :os.
as, say, the Amish." 1he
The original romantics were
ProductS
the emetging
tc<:hnological world; they raised questions about
prodUcts of me
emerging new technological
pointed to what they saw :IS
spirirual failings, but
that world and poimed
as its limits and spiritual
they Were
were not
nor really ones to step completely outside of it. TIley
tiley
They lived and moved
rhe new world being created by new technologies of communication and
about in the
transportation,
regularly riding the railroad into the countryside, living off of an
transporration, ro:gularly

S9
59

Romanticism
Ronunticism and Ihe
me Machine
M.lIcnine

roury priming
not beyond
economy made
mOide possible by the
tlJe rotOiry
printing press. And they were nOt
be}'Ond
considering the utisric
artistic char.Kter
character of new technologies. In his 18))
1833 sonnet, Steam"Steamthat rhese
these machines should
boats, ViaductS,
Viaducts, and Railways,"
Railways: Wordsworth allows rhat
OOns,
byNanm:.~
because
they
arc
products
of~Man's
be embraced
embra.ced by "Nature" bec.lIlse
OIre produCts of~M3n's art.~
OIrt." More enthusiastically, Walt Whitm311
Whitman wrote
wrOte;\I1
an eroticized celebration
cclebra.tion of the locomotive, -To
"To:la
pam 3nd
and roar-now taperLocomotive in Winter~
Wintet" r'Thy
("Thy metrical, now swelling pant
fixti in front/Thy long. pale,
distance/Thy great protruding head-light, flx'd
ing in the distance/TI1Y
purple~)."
floating vapor-pennants, tinged with delicate
deliClre purplel."
But the
thread that ties Nelson to rra.dirional
tradition:!1 romantic writing is the cretlJe real rhread
ation
distinct. struggling
sttuggling persona.
persona, This
111is is not just an idea or a
arion or expression of a distinCt.
textual practices
constrUCt a very
vety particular relanarrative but a collection of rextual
pracrices that construct
narrarive
tion between
writer
and
reader.
Robert
Damton has suggested that the otigins
origins of
Roberr Darntoll
berween
certain
traced back to the time
cerrain modern patterns of reading and writing can be rraced
rime of
Jean.Jacques
Rousseau." Rousseau, Damton
to ~fabricare
"f.tbricate
Jean-Jacques Rousseau,~
Damron has argued, did much ro
reader.
romannc sensitivity"
sensitivir{ by "transforming
romantic
~rransforming the relarion
relation between writer and reader,
of
this
new
rhetorical
situation
was
an
effort
between reader and text.At
the
core
text:
rheroricalsiruarion
to pUt
the persona of the writer in the forefronr,
forefrom. Mlnstead
"Instead of hiding behind the
pur me
to manipulate rhe
the characters
characrers in the manner of Volnarrative and pulling strings to
taire;
wtites, "Rousseau threw himself into his works and expected the
taire,~ Damton
Damron writes,
reader ro
to do the same."
S<llIle.~ Rousse:lu
RoussCOlu encouraged
encour.l.ged his readers to
ro approach his works
hUlnan
authentic, unmedi.ued
unmed.iated expression
expreuion of the inner feelings of a unique human
as the authentic.
foml of art that was capable of communicating
"t:Ommunic.:uing to
being. RouSSCOlu
Rousseau envaioned
envisioned :l.01 form
thOSe
Nouvelle
those far away, without any mediation.
mediation, our feelings,
fedings, will, desires.~
desires: In La NouvtlJr
HdoiJe. for example.
not only made the then-unusual
thellunusu.al geSture
gesture of signHrloijr,
example, Rousseau,
RoussCOlu, nOt
preface.
ing his own name to
to the novel, but also made much of that fact in the preface,
public, He
insisting that a "man of integrity" should not hide himself from the public.
furthermore
llOt want to be considered any bener
better than I :l.m.""
fUrthermon:: insisted th:l.t"l
that ~r do not
am:"
"A man of integrity: in other words,
words. is a man who bues
bares his flaws, which in turn
of authenticity, the sign of an honest connection.
become the mark ofauthenticity,
the nature of wriring
writing and readingTItis
This now-familiar understanding of rhe
Promethean authors
:lUthors sharing their inner struggles with their readers-echoes
in m:l.ny
many artnaS
arenas beyond the expected ones like secondary school literature classacademic: writing. for example,
unheard-of in academic
They are not unhCOlrd-of
example. Rousseaui:ln
Rousseauian
rooms. 11tey
tCXCUlil constructs
conStructs were originally t:Ontrasted
RotlSseau took as the
contrasted with what Rousseau
textual
salon: there an::
are echoes of this
stale,
in.:luthenti" contrived writing of the Parisian salon;
sule, iruluthentic,
jargon and modishness.
aspect
aspeer of Rousseau in common criticisms of academic jOirgon
and to
to 3mdiorate
ameliorate such criticisms it is often fashionable for us academics to adopt
OUt otherwise salonlike writing. For e;ulTIple.
some posr-Rousscauian
post-Rousscauian tricks in our
example,
we cultivate
e1emems of a unique writing voice Ot
cultivare a few elements
or strategically
Strategically insert a per~
personal detail
or
tWO
into
our
treatises.
derail {wo

60

Rom;lnricism :l.nd
;lnd th"
rhe Mxhine
Machine
Romanticism

TIlere an::
;lre many v:lriations
to Van
There
variations of the romantic rebel hero, /Tom
from Thoreau
Thoruu to
(0 Che Guevera. But if Nelson
prob:.lbly William
Gogh to
eIson has :l.:I. predecessor, it is probOibly
BI.:Ike.
sWe-e, the late eighteenth-century English POet.
poet. 111ey
They are not particularly similar
a5
as inrellecrs-BI:.lke
intellects-Blake was a religious myslic
mystic and critic of industrialism.
indusrrialism, whereas
par~
lib"rtarian-and there is no evidence that Nelson was parNelson is more of a Iiberrari:.ln-and
neularly inAueneed
cicularly
influenced by Blake. But the point of comparing them is that they both

offered
similar reading experience and resonated with their :.ludiences
offere.d a~ simibr
audiences by way
similar set
ser of tenua!
tcxtu:.lI practices. An :.lnalogy
BI:tke helps explain the parof a Similar
analogy with Blake
effut of Nelson's oeuvre on
ncularly compelling nature
ticularly
rulrure of Nelson's writing. the effrct
readers
readen of the 1970S and 1980s.
Born into a working-class family, Blake was trained as an
OIn engraver. Engravof
mass
producing
images
in
the eighteenth cening was the primllry
method
primary
tury, and thus in a sense it was the multimedia of the day. When
\Vben Blake sought
m:tke his own :l.rt,
poetry. drawing. and mech:.lnical
reproduc.
to make
to
art, he combined poetry,
mechanical reproduction
that was appropriate to his intense personal vision; he
rion to create a medium thar
invented a new fotm
form of copper-plare
coppet-plate engraving and eschewed
es,hewed the industrialized
typc. He was thus able to create
Create a unique form of illuuniformity of moveable type.
uniformiry
minated manusctipt,
mantlScript. with the text as part of the engraving and each page h:l.ndhandNelson. Blake was more committed to his vision and his
colored. Like Ted Nelson,
persona as a rebel than to
to economic or professional success; Blake's insistence
on maintaining rhe
~
the integrity of his work by eschewing rraditional
traditional printing techniques ensured that he would never become widely known or successful
successfUl during
roques
hit own lifetime.
his
Also. like Nelson, Bl:l.ke
frequently presented
presemed his personal philosophy in witty,
..Also,
Blake &equemly
terms. B1ake's
biting
Blake's"~Prov
Provbiong aphorisms and was known for constantly coining new terms,
eros of Helr
Hell" are
~s
OIre some of his most widely quoted lll:.ltetial.
material. For example, ~AlI
"All that
ia
comraries
II now proved, was once only imagined,"
imagined; attacks empiricism. "Without
~\'vithout contra.ries
ia
-Prisons are built with srones
is no progress,8
progress; att:l.cks
arracks rarion:l.lisr
rationalist deducrivism. And
And-Prisons
stones
oflawB
.LL
hb-'n
,
.of.
of
Law,, Brothels
with
bricks
offRd'
Religionexpresses Blake's
views
conventional
roUlas
Wit
nU<5 0
1810n~ exp~
Blakes
VIews
com'entional
pithy Statement: -Computen
"Computers are no
morality.
lIIOr:l.liry. Nelson is similarly famous for the pirhy
mOrt
inhum:l.n
than
we
make
them.HHComputers:l.re
windup
crossword
puz;zles.~
more ,inhuman rhan
them."MComputers are wind-up
puzzles."
Blake's longer works were based on his person:.ll
mythopoetic universe,
BWees
personal mythopoeric
univetse replete
with
h

'
f.1mously
with
his
characters. Nelson has fOimously

IS own eccentrically
eccentncally
concocted mythic characten_
coined
comed a universe of terms, of which hypertext was merely the beginning; for
,"""pl'
u' - (f<>
(forr aa system
syStem that
that :l.lIows
the inclusion
indusion of
of porrions
portions ofother
of other
Qample.
e, ~transdusiontr.m:>uuslon
allows the
documents in neWet.
"transcopyright" (Nelson's vision of an
documentS
newer. linked documents); -transcopyright"
syStem of micropayments
micropaymenrs for reading and linking to olhers'
aUtomated system
:Ut:mated
others' works);
thinkerroys
to enable intellectual exploration
open-ended devi,cs
devices intended
inrended to
explotation
dunkertoys (for openended
:l.nd
"interrwingularity(for
the
nonhierarchical,
interreand
experimentation);
~
and "interrwingulariryM
intetrelared
ed form of most knowledge).
6,
61

Romamicism
;lnd the Machine
Ro lI1Olnricism md
Machin"

Nelson, in sum, can be described as a liberrarian, computerphilic counterpal'"t

to Blake; borh are witry, aphotistic, philosophically sweeping. economically inaus_

picious wriTers and self-described radicals who do their own illustradons and arc
given to endless neologisms. And both arc captivated with the idea of unmedi_
self
ated, personal control over the process of producing texts for the purpose of self_
expression-in Blake's case, via hand-colored etchings, in Nelson's, via networked

ill

compnters.
How and why did all this mattet in the development of our computer-nerworked world~ The point here is nor to draw psychological parallels between rhe
two thinkers but to point to parallels in how and why they are read. There is a
particular kind of reading pleasnre offeted by an immersion in the works of Blake
or Nelson, and this in turn helps explain the impact of such wotks on readership.
Both Blake and Nelson offer precisely an intimate encounter with a perSOlJll,
a specific literary inter:action with a consrructed nnique individual. Beyond a few
of his most frequently anthologized poems, Blake's appe:ll is inextricable from the
reader's developing a sense of Blake as a person. In reading Blake, one not only
encoumers his startling insights and compelling views; in learning to adjust to his
eccentric spellings, his mythopoetic charactets and terms, to his dr:awing and coloring sryle-which is less beautiful than compelling and didactic-one becomes
accustomed to him the same way one might develop a fondness over time for
the quirks of a loved one. The pleasure of slogging through his often dense and
eccentric works is bound up with the enjoyment of reading his persona-not in
the sense of getting co know the details of his life or his times, bur in the sense
that what one is reading is unique co the imellecrual process of a particular
author. It is not rhat his eccentricities arc things co be overcome in order to get
the universals in his works; on the contrary, those eccentricities are part of how
the texts convey a sense of the individual person of Blake embarked on a process
of discovery.
Reading Ted Nelson's Computer Lib is similar, While browsing the often prescient and arresting insights into institutions and technologies, one also develops a familiarity with Nelson's handwriting (most of the titles of sections are
hand written), his hand-drawn illnstrations (often in comic srrip format), and,
of course, his distinct writing sryle. And one gains a sympathy for his own pleasures in computing and personal frustrations with the problems of the field. For
both Blake and Nelson, one sometimes feels awe at their determination, rebelliousness, and accomplishment, sometimes an appreciation for their insights and
values, and sometimes a kind of poignam identification with someone who gives
the impression, nOT so much of choosing not to compromise with the dominant
ways of his world, bur of someone who could not do so. And of course parr of
rhe rebel hero; even if only in a Reeting
the pleasure is one of identification with the
62

Romanticism and the Machine

tIflIY' there's a thrill in imagining that we readers, coo, might know more than the
authorities, that we might be right when our bosses are wrong.
By the late 1970S, Computer Lib and othet writings by Ted Nelson were
becOming familiar and, in significant numbers of cases beloved, among various
rhe invisible colleges of individuals who developed and programmed
pockeTS of the
DlIrnputers.

Why a Personal Computed

In the 1960s, most of the innovations that went into the use of computers as communications devices-graphic interfaces, email, discussion lists, user-friendliness
in genetal-were developed by individuals lower down on engineering hierarchies, individuals whose salaries were paid for by projects officially dedicated to
othet purposes, like fighting nuclear wars, connecting research scientists to super
computers for elaborate calculations, or Taylorizing routine office work. In the
19705, the same could be said for the microcomputer; it appeared in the margins
of the industry.
The term personal computer crept into the language in the mid-1970S, quickly
becoming atw;hed to the early hobbyiST computers nom the Altair onward, and
became enshrined in the abbreviation PC where ir remains in the language today,
Other tetms have coexisted with it-micro-, de5ktop-. "ome-bur the vaguer perSDnlll seems to have endured. Why~ The word personal as an adjective for a gadget
does not self-evidently mean it is designed for use by one person. We do not call
watches "personal clocks:' transistor radios "personal radios;' pocket calculators
-personal calculators," or cell phones "personal telephones:'
The word personal emered the vocabulary ofcomputing because it is the opposite of imperso/llzl. Before the mid-1970S, both the computer industry and the
culture at large generally saw computers as the embodiment of the neutral, the
universal, the rational and mathematical-as impersonal, as tools for centralizing
bureaucracies, Taylorizing the office, or winning nuclear wars (or, like 2001'S forbidding HAL, as potentially murderous artificial minds). Like the slogan "black
computer~ was a deliberate combination of
is beaUTiful" in the 1960S, "personal computer"
two things the dominant culture understood as opposites. At the beginning.
attaching the term personal to something associated with impersonal universality
Ptovided a nicely startlingjuxtaposition, a two-word condensation ofa larger cultural refiguration of the meaning of computing as a whole. It announced a radical reclassification of computers, raking them our of the old box of mathematical
impersonality and putting them in a new one that associated them precisely with
individual uniqueness, distinctiveness, unpredictability, and expression-with all
those things we have long associated with the romantic persona.
63

Romanricism .md the Machine

refiguralion needs a larger comext.

conrext. By 1975, NelSOll'S
Nelson's Compuur
Computtr Lib and
Such a.:I refiguration
advoc.:lted spread into pockers
pockets of the larger
the alternative ethos of computing it advocated
community of those with some interest and expertise
experlise in computing,
computing. The
TIle cover
communiry
September 1976
[976 issue of Byte
81ft magazine sported a playful,
plnyful, hand-drawn
of the Septembet
image of
of.:la sixties-style political rally,
ralty, with
with amndees
attendees holding aloft signs that s,ay
say
"Two Computers in Every Homer
HOllie!" ~Computer
"Computer Power,~
Power;' and-quoting Nelson_
~Two
"Stamp Out Cyber-Crud!" One of the people in the crowd wears
we.:lrs a T-shirr
T-shirt emblaembla_
~Stamp
zoned with the cover image from Nelson's Computtr
Computer Lib: a F.lised
raised fist. And the
conf;l.ins a now-familiar St:nse
sense of computer-culture whimsy: S,ar
Stllf Trek's
image contains
Spock is in the crowd, and a starship EnterpriSt:
Enterprise flies overhead.'"
overhead.~ It would be sevSpack
eral years before this kind of imagery would be associated with computers in the
broad popular
popul.:lr imaginarion
imagination (HAL was srill
still the more common image ofcomputers
of computers
to thoSt:
rhose inside the
rhe various invisible colin the pop culture of the mid-1970S), but to
engineerillg. these
rllese images
im.:lges were becoming familiar.
leges associated with computer engineering.
dnkerers invented
invemed the
This is the period in which computer hobbyists and tinkerers
microcomputer and revolutionized the
Ihe stmcrure
structure and character
ch.:lracter of the industry.
industty.
The first popular hobbyist
hobbyisl computers appeared for nle
uIe in 1976, and within :la
onC5 would be in a state
st.:lte of
decade new industrial empires would be born, old ones
ellrire industry
indusrry would look F.ldically
radically different.
differem. The core events have
crisis, and the entire
been much mythologized elsewhere in books, documentaries, and even docudramas." Basically, in the
rhe mid-197oS,
mid-1970S, off the radar of the
rhe major corporate ;md
and
dF.lmas."
milituy players in the industry, communities of computer
compurer hobbyists began tinmilitary
kering with the e\'er-cheaper
ever-cheaper digital microchips, most
IllOSt &mously
famously the attendees at
:u
Homcbrew Computer
Cornputcr Club in Palo Alto. Organized by political activist Lee
the Homebrew
r960s fashion,
Felsenstein, who wanted to bring computing to the people in true 1960S
freely shared infonnation
information with one another, including things
the club members &eely
like the version of the Rasic
Basic compUter
computer programming langu..ge
language that had been writAltair, the first commercially
cOllllllercially successful
ten by college dropout Bill Gates for the Altait.
Sreve Jobs and Steve
SteVe Wozniak were regular contributors and
hobbyist computer. Steve
club.
built the Apple I to impress their friends in the dub.
The rise of the microcomputer in the 19705
1970S is worth brieRy discussing in the
imcrnet for tWO reasons. The
TIle first
firsr is context,
comext. Microcontext of the origins of the internet
rhe experience of imeractive
interactive computing and
:md created :l::l
computers both spread the
tontext for widespread networking thar
that would begin roughly fifteen years 1:.Her.
later.
context
Second, the 1970S microcompurer
microcomptl(er revolution nicely iIlusrr:nes
iIlustr:ltes the complexity of
relarion between culrural
developmems.
the relation
cultural trends and technological developments.
srraight line from Nelson's ComCo"'It would be an oversimplification to draw a straight
pllltT Lib to
rhe .:Ippearance
rhe late 19705,
19705. Yes,
Yes. Nelson was
w.as
puter
ro the
appearance of microcomputers in the
m:.lny computer hobbyists of the time
rime a.nd
and made :lppear:.lnces
at the
dle
appearances :It
known to many
P.:Ilo Alto Homebrew Computer
Corllputer Club specifically. But
Bm the first geneution
Palo
gener;uion of

64

Romanticism and
~nd the Machine

microcomputers that emerged from the cra,

era, from the
Alr.:lir to the Apple II CO
to the
thc Altair
were hardly the graphics-intensive, intuitivc
inruitive ~dream
''dre:.lm machines"
machines~ advoIBM Pc. wcre
cated
Nelson. (Nelson himself complained that the Homebrew crowd was toO
tOO
cated. by Nelson,
ar The
the expense of elegant software
obsessed with gadgetry, with chips and wiring. at
design.)" Moreover, one cannot
cannor reasonably argue that
thar Ted Nelson's work was
design.)"
rbt cause of the eventual triumph of user-friendly, gtaphics-oriented
graphics-oriented computing;
the were others in the 1970S al1d
and 1980s who were promulgating various fla\'ors
flavors
tftere
the Engdbarrian
Engelbartian approach
apptoach to
to computing.
cornputing. such as Andries Van Dam
Darn at Brown,
of the
PARC. and so on. The rcvolution,
form, would likely have
havc hapXerox PARC,
revolutioll, in some fonn,

we

~ned without him.

ptned
To search for which individual originated which innovation, however.
howcver, is to
sociorechnical change. By the mid-1970S,
mid-1970s, most
misunderstand the character of soootechnical
norions about how computers might be used and undersrood
understood had
of the possible notions
~dy been arricul.a..ted,
articulated, and the
rhe microchip industry was already well on iu
abeady
its way
rowards making computing inexpensive; Moore's Law
L:lw h:l.d
h:.ld .:Ilready
become
an
already
oper.acing principle. The real question is not who invented wh..t
what bur
but how certain
ceruin
oper.ating
visions and uses became instirutionally
institutionally embedded and en..cted.
enacted. If Ted Nelson
..wons
coumerculrural articulation of computing made a material difference
dillerence in
and the coumerculrur:al
the world, it was on the level ofchanging
of changing how individuals understood
undersrood themselves
Specifically; it offered a different self-concept, a different picpiewithin institutions. Specifically,
ron: of who one was when using and building
building.:la computer.
ture
By the mid-1970S, several different visions of computing were at play in the
technical community. While
the corporate community
cornmuniry was struggling with the
\Vbile rhe
floundering efforr
effort to implement Taylorized
T.1ylorized ~offices
"offices of the future;
future: the military
80undering
wu imagining global command-and-control
command-and-conttol systems with the ARPANET.
ARPANET, and
W:l.S
Engelbart were exploring the enC)'dopedic
encyclopedic vision of compuring.
computing.
descendants of Engelhart
Ted
Nelson
was
the
most
important spokesperson of:l.
of a communiry
cOl1ullIlIIity promulgating
Tt'd
import:a.nt
counterculrural vision of computers as creuive
creative writing machines chat
that
a distinctly countercultural
enabled self-exploration
self-cxploration and expression.
tn.tbled
understand the impact of these competing discourses or visions, it helps
To undersrand
to remember that the microcomputers these hobbyisu
not all
hobbyists were building were nOt
purdy technical
rechnical sense. In fact, the first microcompUters
microcomputerS were not
that unique in a purely
rhar different from the machines be.ing
being sold by the big manutechnologically all that
f'aCtll(ers to impleme.nt
implement the ~office
"office of the future,"
future: For example,
ex:!lllple, in 1977-the same
facturers
}'ear that Apple began
beg.:ln selling
sclling the Apple II computer-IBM introduced its SysSys
~r
rime as
as~.:I
~information processor,"
processor;' which was described at the time
"a terminal with
tem 66~information
'noppy disk' memory that
th.:lt stores more
a small TV-like screen to display text, a 'floppy
information, and
thar controls a flow
Row of ink droplets
a.nd a high-speed inkjet printer chat
inform:uion,
(and which could] communicate with a computer
to form characters
charactcrs on paper [and
othcr IBM word processors OVCt
over phone lines:',.
lines."" 111e
-111e sticker price for an
Or with other

65
6S

Romanticism :md
and me
the Machine
Rom:mricism

I I 11

1"11

t!

~I

Icss-:.lbou( $2000'"
rhe IBM syssys_
Apple II was much less-:.lbou[
$2000"" compared to $16,450 for the
tem-but
drivc. a monitor, networking capabilities.
tem-bur the larrcr
Lanet induded
included ;la floppy
Roppy drive,
an ink-jet printer,
e1abor;l.te softw:lr<:.
have been
beell
primer, and elaborate
softw.are. These items, if they could h:l.\c
to the Apple II at
ae the
rhe rime of iu
its introduction, could well have brought it to
added to
r.mge.'
a similar price range."
the Apple II from IBM's System 6, then.
was less
Jess the
What distinguished me
men, w:lS
specific t:hnology
technology than the imagined use. One bought an IBM System 6 in the
s~cinc
expectation
:tlready institurionally
institutionally defined. the
eJCpecr;lrion of solving particular problems 2lre2dy
that could be laid
grant application
applic:ltion or a corporate busibusi.
kind of problem chat
l.aid our
Oll[ in a grnnr
II in 1977 simply to have
h ...ve a computer, simply to
ness plan. One bought an Apple [I
explort, nor to
ro undertake a known task. The poinr
to explore,
paim of view
see what it could do, (0
irs marketing,
programming, cOSt
cost structure, and so
embedded in System 6-in its
marketing. programming.
thar of upper management
forth-was that
managemem concerned about cutting cosrs
COStS and better
regulating behavior within giam,
giant, far-Rung
far-flung enterprises.
emerprises. TIle Apple II
11 was designed
wirh another ethos in mind, purposes that in rum
turn implied different
differenr views :.I.bout
abour
with
how dle
the social world worked. TIle
The Apple II was much cheaper than the IBM SysWo:mi2k's famously clever circuir
bur JUSt
tem 6, not just because of Steve Wozniak's
circuit design, but
:IS
imporranrly
because
ir
did
not
come
aS:l
complete
system
ready
for
integration
u import2Jldy becau.se it
nOt
as:.l.
m.dy
into :.aI. corpor.ate
corporate office; it
ir was sold simply as a box thar
into a:.I.
imo
th:.l.t could be plugged imo
drive, or elaborate
softw:ll'e
monitor or :.aI. TV set, without a prinrer,
printer, disk dri~'e,
d:.l.bor.ace set of software
corporate goals.
goals, The Apple II W:.l.S
was remulubly
remarkably cheap only if one's
dedicated to corpor.ate
goal was to plllY
compufer, only if the sheer fact
operarplay with a<l (omputer,
bct of owning and operating a computer was a goal in and of iudf.
itself. IBM's System 6 and similar machines
were cre:m:d
such:la goal
gO:l1 connicted
created in a conrexr
comext where such
conflicted with rhe
the basic insrrumental
instrumemal
underst2nding
important sense, the microcomunderstanding of what a compnrer
computer was for. In an importallt
puter was not a new technology; it
imagining, marketing. and
ir was a new way of imagining.
existing technologies. An Apple II was supposed to offer suprises, whereas
where:ls
using exiSting
a System
SYStem 6 was supposed to prevent them.
compurer fairs and other industry conventions
convemions were :.I.n
an
l:are 1970s, computer
In the 1:l.Ie
import:tnt
locus
for
culril'3ting
shared
interptetive
frameworks
for
the
indusrry.
impom.nt
fOr cultivating shued interpretive
industry.
executives, gadgets
physic:ll
Engineers, v::ecutives,
g;rdgers and reporters were brought togerher
together in physi~
jusr the
dIe airing of new ideas, but
bur Ihat
excitproximity. This would allow,
2II0w, not JUSt
that rich, excit<
affirm:ttion :.I.nd
and amplification that comes from being face to f.ace
face with
ing sense of affinnation
sem a reporter fO
others who share one's view. In June 1977, the New York Times
Timc.! sent
to
the National Computer
Compmer Conference in Dallu.
Dallas, whose story prominently featured
the new excitement around microcomputers.'
microcomputers." In August,
August. in an arlicle
article specifically
:tbout
artention
about the enthusiasm around microcompurers.
microcomputerS, rhe
the paper
papet called readers' attention
to the upcoming Personal Computing Show in Atlantic
Adantic City, Computermania
Computermallia
in Boston, and the Personal Computing Expo in New York City. And the article
Coasr Computer Faire
Fairc in
referred back to rhe
the now-legendary debut of the West Coast

66

Romanricism and me
rhe Machine
Romanticism

rook place in April!' Within an hour's drive of Silicon ValV:ilSan Francisco, which took

Icy. the West

F:iire offered attendees the first look at the Apple
Icf,
\Vest Coast Computer Faire
IL attendance wu
was double that :illticipatcd,"
lLarrendance
anticipated," and it was becoming clear to those in
artendance that the new world of microcomputers was going to h:n'e
anencl2nce
ha\'e an impact.
Nelson
"'Those Unforgettable
and
NcJson gave a keynote speech called lhose
Unforgert:lble Next
Next: Two Years,~ 2nd
he opened by saying. "Here we ue
arc at the brink of a new world. Small computers
be
yOIl know it,~
it: He continued,
are going to remake our society, and you
dle dinky (OmpUle1'$
are working magic enough. They will bring
For now, though, [he:
computers au
about
du.nges in $OCitty.u
~ery as radical
I':Idical [host
thO$( brought about by the [elephone
telephone or
~bou[ changrs
Or the
auromobilr.
here,)'0\1
ran buy thnn
charge
~utomobile. The little
li[t1e computers ue
~re here,
you c~n
them On )'Our
your plastic
pla.stic ch~rge
card,
avaibble accessories include disc
dil< s[o"'ge,
srol':lge, gr.tphic
interactive
e~rd, and the available
gr~phie displays.
di5play5, in[cractive
g.omes,
that d",w
dl':lw pictures
and goodncss
goocIneu
g:>mcs, programmable
programmablc turtles
rurtb th:u
pic[urcs on butcher paper, a'ld
know~ what
wh:l.t else.
Here wr
a\l [hc
the makings of a f...d,
fad, it is f:m
fast blossoming
blossollling into
into:l.~
knows
d$c. Hcrc
we have
h~vc~!J
CUll, and soon it
willl11ature
to a~ full-blown
filII-blown consumcr
con~umer m~rket
market....
The rush will
cult,
iT will
mature in [0
.... lhe
~ on. Thc
The Amtrkan
American manufieturing
mal1uficturing publicity
publidry machine will
in gourd.
be
wiU go out of iu
And ,he
next two
two )eatS
will be
be unfOrgettable."
unforgettable."
me nn[
rears win
k would be five rears
yeatS befOre
before the microcomputer would be featured on the cover
two." but again Nelson's predictions would tum
turn
JofTimt
Ti".( as
25 ~man of the year,~ IIOt
not two,"
out to be surprisingly accurate, more so (han
than most ofthe
of the musings about
aboUT the
rhe future
of computing that were appearing in the mainstte:un
mainstream press at
rhe same rime,
time,
ar the
still tended towards
T:lylorized office. As a result, thousands
which stiU
rowards visions of the Taylorized
individuals who were involved or were becoming involved with computing by
of individua:ls
mending conferences (or talking to those who attended them) were exposed to
attending
tbecounteccultural
dle meaning of computing. and over the next sevthe
counrercultural rendition of the
en.!
h:lnd how, on occasion, a rollicking iconoclastic
eral years would experience first hand
our to be more :lccurate
discourse could rum out
accurate than the dry, jargon-ridden prognostiations of mainstream executives,
execurives, academics, and financial page reporters.
tications
W

Conclusion
Ar
rhe end of
the 1970S, [he
the various visions of
computing associated with Ted NdNelArthe:
ofthe
ofcomputing
1On1On_ computers were for symbol manipul:ition
manipulation :.I.nd
and therefon:
therefore they should be used
1&
vehicles for passion:.l.te
passionare explor:ltion
sc:lf-expression-were still minority
II whicles
exploration :lnd
2nd sdf-expression-were
\'iews, both inside the indusrry
out, The
TIle big money was still flowing
Rowing towards
riews,
industry and out.
Jiant mainframes, centralizing corporate applic:.I.tions,
applications. military applic:uions,
applications, and
Fant
tIoric experimentS like artificial intelligence-approaches to computing that,
thar, for
txoric
:au
rheir variability, were hardly counterculruraL Even those who were interested
aU their
an COmputer communication tended to think in rationalist, Enlightenment terms;
rerms;
in
C1Dmputers
~puters were going to be for sober activities like looking up scientific informatiOn, helping professionals keep their appointll1ents.
tion,
appointments, or better educating youth.
67

Rom.:mricism and the Machine

M:l.chine
Romanticism

19705, however, a new cultural toolkir

toolkit was made available to and
During rhe 1970S,
within rhe world of compuring.
computing. Its significance was nor JUSt
rendered compelling wirhin
coumercultural trappings into
inco rhe
the office
that it brought bean bag chairs and other countercultural
the high-tech industry. Rather, it offered a new social meaning for
buildings of rhe
computer use, a new vision of what it meant (0 sit down at a computer console
and of who rhe person was who was using it-a new idea of self in association
computers. It was not news to compUTer
computer engineers of the 1970S
19705 thar
that in some
with computets,
that there exisred
existed computer games, that computers
sense computers could be fun, thar
power. Bur,
Bue, before the counterculture, that knowledge and experihad a holding power,
ence for the most parr had (0
to be
he treated as all insider secret or an odd side-effect
rhat one mentioned guiltily, if at all. Compurers
Computers needed (0
to perof the machines that
form specific, rational functions for large organizations; that they might also be
grant proposal, or markering
marketing
fun was not something to put in a business plan, gram
campaign-not something that might help legitimate computers.
the second half of the 1970S, that was changing. From about 1976 onwards,
By rhe
computer engineer or graduate student, perhaps
it was common enough for a compUTer
ftom the Pentagoll,
Pentagon, (0
to pick up a
one whose livelihood was secured by mOlley from
copy of Computrr
Computer Lib or Crrativr
Creative Computing during a coffee break and, in the
midsr of descriptions of new programming languages or techniques for rendermidst
gtaphics, be exposed to a mode of understanding.
undersranding. (0
to what Bourdieu calls a
ing graphics,
compulsivc character of computer work mighr
might be associated
associatcd
habitus, in which the compulsive
with social legitimacy, might be something that
thar could be brought into the
thc light of
public advocacy. By offering a romantic framing of computer use-computer use
bc articulated as playful, expressive, even rebellious-the
rcbellious-the activity of comcould be
usc and design no longer
longcr Ileed
need be instrumentally tied ro a specific ends; the
puter use
means could be an end in itself.
effecTS of this romantic framing. as we will see, would come in
Most of the effects
its
subsequent decades; in 1980, the broad outlines of the computer indwmy and irs
place in the larger culture was nor all that different from the situation of 1970. But
rhe computer
compurer counterculture's survival was secured by microcomputers, which
the
ro a degree,
degtce, nOt
nor for specific purposes, bur in a
were originally conceived and sold to
computing-for-computing's sake way. This not only created a new market
playful, compuring-for-compuring's
but a widely accessible alternative vision to the highly ends-oriented, instrumenbur
lllis fact left
tal way in which computers had been imagined up to that point. 111is
rhc original entry-level
emry-level IBM PC would
its imprint on the machines themselves; rhe
gamc port before it offered a hard disk.~ Bur,
But, perhaps more significantly;
offer a game
potcntially connected
rhis playfulness of means and uncertainty of ends was now potentially
wirh
a
rebel-hero
identity.
identity would provide people in the profession
with
That idenrity
thinking of themselves and their relations to others and would
with a new way of rhinking
draw new people into the profession.
also dtaw

68

the Machine
Romanticism and rhe

Missing the Net

The 198os, Microcomputers, and the Rise of Neoliberalism

..., a networhd
networked computer
compurer sysrem....
system.... They had over a hundred
They showed me ..
that. r was so
Alto computers all nerworked using email etc.. ere.. I didn't even sa that,
rhing they showed me which was the graphical uSer interface.'
blinded by rhe fitst thing
-Steve Jobs. looking back on his visit to
Xerox PARe in December 1979

Two Guys in a Garage?

COmputer was initially the product of the collaboration of three
The Apple II computer
Clilford "Mike" Markkula, Jr.
people, Steven Jobs, Steven Wozniak, and Armas C1ilford
Matkkula, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, was dearly essential
essemial to the crecrcMarkkula,
arion and success of the company; Wozniak has suggested Markkula was the
most important of the three.' He provided both capital and managerial skills,
served as chainuan of the board, and for a while during Apple's period of most
CEO.ll1le Apple was nor the first microcomputer;
rapid growth, he was Apple's CEO.l111e
wete many hobbyists tinkering with tiny computers
computets at the time Apple was
there were
somc of them were manufacturing
mannfacturing and selling them. What
Whar
started, and already some
matdistinguished Apple is that it led rhe fledgling industry beyond the hobbyist marker imo the larger world. Markkula, arguably, is the one who made this happen,
ket
who distinguished Apple from all the other early microcomputer builders by
using his knowledge and connections to turn a business run by and for hobbyists
into something capable of growth beyond those bounds.
Yet a search of English language newspapers and magazines for the decade of
the 1980s rums
turns up only 83 articles thar
that mention Markkula,
Markkula. Steve
Sreve Wozniak turns
rhe
up 417 articles, and Steve Jobs, 791, a difference of five-fold and ten-fold, respectively.' Apple computer, the world was repe:ltedly
repe:ltedl y told, was started by "cwo
"twO guys
tively,
two guys.
in a garage; and Markkula was not one of those cwo
Why this oversight? In 1985, newly reelected President Ronald Reagan
annonnced, "We have Lived rhrough
through the
rhe age of big indusrry and the age of the
announced,
giant corporation. But I believe that this is the age of the entrepreneur:" This was
nor nearly
ncatly fit
fir the myrhic
mythic American narrarive of the
Markkula's problem. He did not

69

entrepreneur.
entrepreneur, who in popular fantasy came from nowhere and needed no outside
Markkula came from somewhere and had connections.
support. Matkkula
connecrions. He was an expe_
rienced Silicon Valley manager.
manager, fluent with the complexities
complexides of incorpoutio
incorporation,
ll
venture capiral,
capital, manufacrure.
vemure
manufacture, and distribution.
distriburion. He brought an established
cstablished body
knowledge. social relationships, and experience to be:.tr
bcu on the production :.tnd
and
of knowledge,
microcomputer. But,
1980s, the m:.tinstre:.tm
mainstream press W2s
was
markering of the microcompurer.
marketing
Bur, in the
rhe 1980S,
sensitized to me
the Story
story of the entrepreneur
emrepreneur and was e:.tgerly
eagerly looking fOr
for real-world
sc.nsitized
the narradve.
rhe cl.usic
classic narrative
gocs, work
instances of me
n:lrT:ldve. And entrepreneurs, the
n:.trrarive goes,
established social Enme.
fr:lme_
alone, wimout
without connections, b:.tckground
background knowledge,
knowledge. or est:.tblish~
:lione,
g'Tr/lge and
works. A search
se:.treh in Lcxis/Nexis
Lexis/Nexis for
fOr anicles
Olrrides that
mat contain
cont:lin the words gamg(
3.Od
Apple
Computcr in the 19805
rums up dm:ens
articles with tides
~More
Appk ComputM'
1980S turns
dm;ens of 3.rricles
titles like -More
Millionaires. Please;
(71,c Economi~f),'-Risk
E(oflolllist).~Risk TakersTakers~ (US NelllJ
Imd World
Young Million3.ires,
Plellse; (71x
NeM and
Reporf).'
and "The Spirit of independenceIndependence~(I'I(.).'
(IIlC).'
Report); 3.Ild
It is a facr
lr
fOlct thar.
mOlt, in the year
yeOlr before Markkula arrived, Jobs and Wozniak,
OUt of a garage, did make and sell about two hundred citcuit
circuit
working literally out
computer called the Apple. This
form the core of a hobbyist compurer
boards that could fOrm
rhe hugely popular entrepreneurial fable
F.l.ble that
dlen became the core of the
nugget rhen
rwo guys in a garage. But this pre-Markkula
Apple computer was starred
st:.trted by twO
preMarkkula
year involved an unincorporated,
unincorporared. relatively informal partnership of two collegeyeat
aged hobbyisrs
hobbyists making something for other hobbyists. Wozniak was working full time
rime for Hewlett Packard at the
rhe time and has said of the change
Ibis was different
when they
rhey joined up with Markkula, "This
differenr than the year we
spent
the Apple I togcthet
rhe garage. This
-rbis was a real compa"y.
compllllY.
spem throwing me
together in the
I designed a computer because I like to design,
design. to show off at the club. My
motivation was not to
to have a company and make money:'
money.~t But, in the
rile 1980s,
rh:lt distinguish two
rwo guys in a garage from a real
those things mat
relll company would
the microcomputer industry,
indusrry. casu.a.lties
casualties
largely disappear
disappellr in media coverage of me
the entrepreneurial
entrepreneuri:ll narrative.
of me
symptom of a general transformation
domin:lnt,
bcun:l was :la Symptom
This lacuna
rransfOnnation in the dominant,
governing
gO\'erning ideas of American society in the early 198oS,
1980S. when a r:ldieal
radic:.al belief in
markets and
3.Ild an accompanying
acconlpanying suspicion of
of.all
all forms
fOrms ofgO\'C.rnment
ofgovernment regulationregularionthat were once thought to be fringe-would become commOll
sel1se. among
beliefs mat
common sense
effects. In the early 1980s.
many in positions of power, with global effecrs.
1980s, tOO, the im:lge
image
of computers as distant and fonnidable
formidable W:lS
popul:lr imaginaimagin:lwas overthrown
o\'erthrown in the popular
cion and replaced
repbced by the little
lirtle typewriter-like boxes appearing with ever-more
tion
frequency in advertisements.
advertisements, the media, offices, and homes. These two epochal
nor unrelated. The partitular
p:lrticular W:lY
shifts were not
way the microcomputer :lppeared
appeared on the
market faith fed
American scene, we sh:lll
shall see, helped make the
rhe marker
feel right. At the same
time.
market lens disrracted
that would
time, the marker
distracted the larger culture from developments rhat
specifically. developments
developmentS in the
rhe internet.
later prove to be momentous: specifically,
70

Mining the
rhc Nct
Ncr
Mil5ing

Microcomputets
Microcomputers and Markets
John Maynard Keynes famously said.
Practical men, who believe themselves
said, Practic:li
to be quire
illlellectual inAuence.
the slaves of
to
quite exempt
exempr from any intellectual
influence, are usually me
some defunct economist."'o
Marx and other
SOllle
economist:"' True enough, but why sometimes Marl\':
times Milton Friedman?
Fri~man~ Whar makes some intellectllal
imelletrua! frameworks gain
disappear? Sometimes mere
there are broad fOrces
forces
widespread support while others disappear~
selfinterest. Bur
But mere
there are too
tOO many cases of wealthy
at work, like economic self-interest.
ro be me
the whole
Marxists and working-cLass
working-class economic consel'Yatives
that [0
tonservatives for m3.t

ames

Itory.
""",.
pan of what
c;l.reful cultivation
Of course, part
wh3.t drives the uptake of ideu
ideas is their
mdr careful
institutions. like academia.
instimtions.
in traditional institutions,
academia, think tanks.
t:lnks, and similar institutions,
followed by the careful
cneful promotion of ideas into various halls of power through
fOllowed
mrough
of
neolibpublications. conferences, 3.Ild
and the money to
produce
them;
in
the
case
publications,
ro
movemenr and ;I.a series
eralism,
era.lism, we will see that the Chicago law and economics movement
uinformation society"
rhar
of publiC2tions
publications about the "inform.ation
society played their
theit part. Sometimes mat
thar is needed; numerous ideas filter
filrcr from institutions
is all that
instirutions into our businesses,
l;aws, and legislation without the general
gcneral public hearing much about them.
rhem, muth
much
laws,
less understanding them.
rhem.
Bur,
level. there's another
piece of the puzzle. To
mote enduring level,
another.piece
But, on a broader more
really influence society widely and deeply.
deeply, ideas need to
to become vivid. Connections need
ne~ to
to be drawn between the structures of everyday lives and the larger,
l.arger,
experiences that lend themmore absrract
abstract world. For example.
el\':ample, rural life offers el\':periences
selves
cerrain political worldviews-a
worldviews-:l hunter's distaste
diStaste for the annoyances of
Idves to
to tert3.in
gun licensing might evolve into a distaste for government regulation in general.
abom urh3.Il
urban
And life in a cicy
city offers differenr
different eKperiences,
experiences, in which ;la concern about
to regul.arion
regulation in general.
violence or zoning laws might make one more receptive to
JUSt a geographical
Everyday life, however, is nOt juS!
EYnyday
geographic:.al place like suburbia.
suburhiOl. It is built OUt
of the regular engagement with people, spaces, and objects.
microcomputer
In the 198os,
1980s, fOr
for .aa large chunk of the U.S. middle class, the micnxomputer
becamee JUSt such a socially evocarive
bttam
eVOC:l.tive object in their everyday lives, an object that
with it certain experiences from which one might draw broader conclubrought wim
sions
narure of social existence. Specifically, the way in which microlions about the nature
tUrn them into an emblem of what's
computers appeared in everyday life helped rum
COmputers
whar's
good about the free marker.
tWO things were significant about this period. First, networking
nerworking
Culturally, twO
the dominanr
dominant culture was seeing things through free marker
market
Was ignored because rhe
rhus imagined that microcomputers were about isolated individuals
lenses and thus
on rheir
their own; it was disinclined to
to think about the broader social relations
acting 011
I.ih networking that both produced microcomputers
microcompUters and that could be enabled
like
71

Missing
rh~ Net
Missingrht:

l'

domi
by them. The focus of this chapter.
chapter, then, will be on what preoccupied the dominant technological imagination of the time,
rime, particularly
particul:irly how the microcompurer
microcomputer
tile formation of what
wh3t has since become known as neoliberalism
played a role in the
llUlrkcr fundamenralism.
fundamentalism. Second-and this will be the subject
or, to its critics, market
of chapter four-in the crevices of the military-industrial complex, a specific set
of practices evolved associated
:Issociarcd with early networks that
chat in fact pointed
poimed in a very
TIle community of computet
computer network
network_
politic:!! economic direction. The
different political
etS relied on a high degree of awareness of the
rhe complexilies
complexities of social relations
tchuions
ers
elemenu of countercultural
counrcrculrural style.
that everyone else was ignoring; enriched by dements
invtnting the
rhe very nonmarket
nonmuket tradition of open software
sofrware
[his community was inventing
this
~rough consensus and working code,~
code," a rradition
tradirion that would lead
production via ~rough
sutprising rise of the internet in the early 19905 and later in the decade
to the surprising
become the core of one of the major countervailing forces against neoliberalism's

or

simplistic market vision.

How to Make Markets Modern:
Technology and the Rise of Neolibe.ralism
Neoliberalism

II

~.

rhetoric, and in populat

popular culture, the United Srates
States has
In legal thought. political metoric,
:l.lways had strong
Strong strains of a Locken
Lockean individualist framing of life, wherein me
rhe
always
marketplace is understood as me archepower of individuals to pursue profit in a markerplace
freedom. But
Bur the U.S. has never been purely
purdy a place of Homo l.'conomicus.
type of fTeedom.
nonomicus.
For example, patriotism, religion, ethnocentrism, civic republicanism, Emersonian individualism, the labor movement, and the
rhe sentimentalized
sentimentali:zed middlec1ass
middle-class
man
have all at points wotked
notion of the home and family ha\'e
worked as popular and powerful
counterweights to striCt
strict marketplace individualism. Various flavors
Ravors of socialism
counu:rweighrs
anatchism, fUrthermore,
furthermore, have their important place in American traditions.
and anarchism,
Matket individualism has been not so much 11,[
Market
the American ideology as it has been
that, at any given moment, comprise the
tegular part of the mix of ideologies mat,
a regular
:l.nd politial
politic:l.l terrain.
social and
soci:ll
W:l.S in th:lt
that sense that, beginning in the late '970s,
19705, a new variety of market
It was
inAuence on policy m:l.king
individualism arose and came to have enormous influence
making both
n:l.tionallyand
from about
:l.bout 1980 through the end of the twentieth
natiOllally
and internationally nom
v:l.riously as neoliberalism, the Washington
W:l.shingron consensus, and:mdcentury. Known variously
derog:l.tively-:l.s market fundamentalism, as of this writing it has only recently
derog:l.tivdy-as
m:l.king in the United States
St:l.tes and most
lost its overwhelming dominance of policy making
p;IttS of the world and still remains:l.
powerful force.
other parts
remains a powerfUl
om thrive inside universities and other institutions
Intellectual movements
movemenlS can
Intellecmal
without ever gaining traction in the worlds of politics and popular culture. But
acceptance in poliriC5
politics and culture needs some form
any movement that does gain acceplance

72

Missing the Net

Ner

of expert institutional legitimacy and

:l.nd culrivation
cultivation to succeed. Neoliberalism
Neoliber:l.lism trifirst ic
it gained
umphed because of its articulation with popular consciousness, but firsl
platform inside various think tanks
unks and academic
aC:l.demic movements. Technology
:l:I placform
cultivation.
played no small role in each stage of its cultil':ltion.

ill fhe
fig Law
Lmll and
mid Ecollomic$
MOllcmcIlt
Technology in
Economics Movemt'llt
Thete was a time when new technology and progress seemed to
to belong more
There
to the left side of American politics. In the Progressive Era,
Era. Louis Brandeis was
:l.ble to argue the case for antitrust law by painting rrusts
trusts and robber b.trons
barons as
able
against progress."
19305, New Dealers
unscientific and thus inefficient and avinsc
progtess. ~ In the 1930S,
government-created TVA and other big government projecu as
celebrated the governmenr.created
a:lebrared
f:act is, the first half of
being on the side of new technology and progress." 111e
The fact
me twentieth century saw the rise of giant corporations like AT&T and General
Genenl
the
transfonnative effects
elfecu of the New Deal, and the centrally managed
Electric, the transformaci\'c
19405, all of which provided the Conten
COntext in which the United
war efforT
efforr of me t940S.
me richest and most powerfUl
powerful country in the world and its
iu
States had become the
citi:zenry had bun
been showered with
wirh wondrous
wondtous ncw
new things like:
like radio,
radIO, refrigerators,
refrigeratorS,
citizenry
the interstate highway system. And much of this had
television, automobiles, and [he
ulevision.
enrrcpreneurs striking out on their
been :accomplished,
bc:c:n
accomplished, not by plucky enrrepreneurs
meir own, but
relatively tighr
tight cooperation between government
governmenr and large, multiunit, bureauby rdatively
centralized corporations. Keynesianism gradually beame
became orthodoxy
cratically cenrralized
powerfUl intellectual
intelJecrualleaders
wrote books like Eugene
for both political parties,
parries, powerful
leaders wrore
v: Roscow's
Rostow's 1959 Plllllllillg
Frudom, and modest government regulation of
V.
Planning for Frl"tdom,
television news to airline ticker
ticket prices seemed rational.
profeseverything from rdevision
rational, profes.
forward-looking."
sional, and forw:ud.looking."
1960s, as a result,
tesult, American advocates
adVOCates of orthodox economic libertarliberrarBy the 1960s.
backward and oldfashioned.
old-fashioned. Calls for dramatic rollbacks in
ian principles looked backw:.trd
govemment regulation and praise for the comp<:titive
competitive free market seemed throwgovernment
to the previous century, as quaint and out-ofd:ue
out-of-date as Rohimoll
RobiliJOII Crlls~.
erl/JOr.
backs to
the economic conservatives astutely recognized
recogni:zed was that, to
to regain
What che
imellecrual authority, they would need to make market individualism modern.
intellectual
The works of Ayn Rand, Hayek, and some marginalist economic theory might
be persuasi\'e
persuasive in their own citcles
circles of true believets,
believers, but the l:l.rger
larger world needed
someming more. So they set out to show, not JUSt that markets in general were
something
specifically that free markets,
m:l.tkeu, unhindered
unhindered. by governefficient or moral, but more specific:.tlly
eflicient
mosr modern of technologies. Radio,
ment regulation, could better
benet handle the most
argun,ent went, did not
television, jet planes, even computers, the underlying argument
need government regulation like the FCC and Federal Aviation Administration,
or government-funded tesearch,
research. or protected, regulared
regulated monopoly corporations

73

Missing the Net

[Q be freed of the shackles of all these

like AT&T;
AT&::T; on the contrary, they needed to
things. Free markets could be high tech.
intellecrual
Several different strains of thought combined [Q
Sever:al
to provide an intellectual
framework for aU
all this. Most famously,
f.1.l1lously, a fully deliberate effort centered at the
oj Lmv
J.,1l1V lllld
EClllromics gran-ed
grafted strains
neo_
Univetsiry
Chicago's }ounlill
Journal of
and Economics
str:ains of neo
University of Chic:lgo's
ontO key legal concepTS,
OTher neoc1:l.ssically
neoclassically
classical economic thought onto
concepts, and other
oriented economisTS
idea that gov.
goveconomists began seeking ways to give new life to the id~
ermnent
regulation
was
an
anathema."
Beginning
in
the
1960S,
a
series
of
up_
up.
emment
anathema,"
intellectuals, such lIS
and-coming conservative 3crivist
activist intellectUals,
as Richard Posner, Douglas
H. Ginsburg.
Ginsbutg, and Robert Bork, sometimes in association with foundations like
H,
the classically conservative
conserv,nive Heritage Foundation or the more libertarian Cato
Insritute,
beg:lll
that probed the intellectual
intellecrual :I.pparatus
appar:atus of the
Institute, began publishing articles th;l.t
SpOTS. Nor
Not content
twentieth-century
twentiethcentury American welfare state for weak spots.
contem [Q
to nick.
stick
f.1.bles about village markers,
to traditional.
markets, Horatio Algers, or celrraditional, conservative fables.
ebrations of corporate chieftains.,
chieftains, they t:lclcled
regul:l.tions.
tackled the hllm
hard (IlS($;
ca.u-s: :airline
airline regulations,
law,
FCC
regulation
of
radio
w;l\'es-exacrly
those
cases
andtrusr
wa\'cs-cxxdy those: ascs thar
that New
antitrust Law,
Dealers and their successors had pteviously
previou.s.ly identified to illustrate the limits of
free markets..
markets. In each case,
fTee
case. the law and economics scholars tried to show that the
cozy relationships between business and government characteristic of postwar
corporate liberalism-relationships like those encouraged by the reasoning of
or
Vannevar Bush's Sciencr,
Scieuce, th<
ti,e Endkss
EmlleJJ Frontier-were.
Froutirr-were, despite all appearances,
appearancc:s., neither necessary nor efficient and would he
be best dealt with by dramatically
dramadcally scaling
Lawyers, judges.
judges, and politicians, the
back government money and regulation. Lawyers.
rhe
argument went, could make sound, forward-thinking decisions by thinking
dtinking in
terms
cfficiency instead of contenns of notions like consumer welfare and economic efficiency
cepn like the public good.
ceptS
The law and economics activists.
activists, it's worth remembering.
remembering, were offering what
t970S, with
seemed like bright new ideas.
ideas in the context of a vacuum. The early 1970s,
tead as a low point
the Watergate scandal and the defeat in Vietnam,
Viemam, is often read
cerrain kind
for American conservatives. But it was in fact a low point for a certain
of postwar, nationalist, corpor.lte-oriented
corporate-oriented centrism; the Nixon administration
had annoyed both social and economic conservatives with many
mallY of its policies,
and the Vietnam debacle had been set in motion by Democratic presidents.
industrial
[970S progressed, the U.S. economy was stnlggling
struggling and
;l.nd industri;l.l
And, as the 1970S
leadership was bewildered; thcse
rhe short-li\'ed
shortlived Ford and
these were the days of the
sugflation, :lnd
Carrer
and of the initial stages of the devastat~
devastatCarter administrations, of stagflation,
ing decline in rust belt
bell manuf:tcruring.
lit this depressing context,
context. the law and
manufacturing. In
nOt only criticisms.
economics theorists offered, not
criticisms, but what to some looked like
a way out of this mor:ass.
morass, one that would not seem to threaten existing wealth
we;l.]th
and ways of life.

74

Mining the Nct

Missing
Ner

Informatioll
I,iformation Society Tluory
n,eory
Roughly contemporaneously, a rather different strain of thought relevant specifically to
infotmation society theorists. In
[0 computers appeared, generated by the information
the leadetship
information society
die
leadership vacuum of the mid-1970S, the rhetoric of the inform:nion
provided another galvanizing alternative vision for capitalist energies.
In the ashes of the 1960S
1960s counterculture and McLuhanism, Daniel Bell, Marc
centrality and importance ofvarious
of various Sj'lllsymPorat,
and
others
began
to focus 011
Potat,
on the cenrrality
governments, and
bolic economies in developed industrial societies; corporations, governments..
balic
everyday life seemed ever more dependent upon and infiltrated with ever more
eCT}'day
communication. like satellites and computers, and ever more
elaborate systems of communication,
of
data
and cultural
elaborate
forms
data. :md
culrural products, like marketing research.
research, globally
cIabor.lte forms.
Jean-Francois Lrourd
Lyotarcl noriced
distributed Hollywood movies, and so on."
on'" Je:an-Fr:mcois
noticed these
mnds
TI,e Postmoderll
P05tlllodrrll Condifion,
COllditioll. sending a faction
f.lction of
uends around 1980 and wrote The
humanists
postmodernism." Bur,
humanists. off on a two-decades
tv.'o-decades intellectual
intellectu;l.l romp called po.stmodemism."
But,
in
tulle
with
the
power
centers
of
Washington,
DC.
Bell
and
Porat
intermore
ID()fe
tune
Centers
\Vashingron. DC,
information society, where, as Bell pur
pKted
put
preted these trends
ttends as signs of a coming infonnation
a,ie,life
life would no longer be about ~the
things~ but instead
"a game
"the management of things"
inste1ld"a
peOple.~'7 The refrain that emerged from these texts
between people.....
texts. was that
mat we were
approaching a;I. society where the
me principal commodities would not be
he rradirional
traditional
resoutces or industrial objectS
objects but rather digitally distributed infonnarion.
information.
resources
Numerous compelling scholarly critiques of the information society tradition
Numetous
have been published. Much of the arly
early work, it has been argued, rested on a
have:
reports of a growing service sector of the economy in
misinterpretation of the repons
milinterpreration
growth of low wage
which the groWfh
w;l.ge service jobs like restaurant work is mistaken for a
growth in knowledge work like computer progra.mming.
programming. Also, the argument for
fundamemal transfonnation
transformation in capitalism (:I.S
(as opposed to :a.I. simple continued
a:I fundamental
devdoptnent in long-standing trends like consumerism and the use of telecomdevelopment
munications to coordinate production) was thin, more often
assumed than
d,an demonen :.I.ssumed
onstrated." Among the sociologists and economists who make:.l.
make a living seriollsly
onstnted."
seriously
hal'e Uktll
studying epochal historical change, few have
taken the idea of an information
ItUdying
SOCiety all that
tociery
th;l.t seriously.'.
seriously."
But the idea of the information society nonetheless had
h;l.d :In
an enormous appeal
OUtside academe, most evidenced by its popularization
popularb:ation in
ill works of Alvin Tomer,
bestsellers with the 1980
WllIIC. So
[980 TIJird
TlJird Wave,
who added to his line of future shock bcstsellers
why did this notion do as well as it did?
It
could
indeed
be
readily
foreseen
that
didl
communication
ehe digital.
COmmunication systems were on a trajectory towards convergence in the
that were
But
BUt there were a lor
lot of other terms referring to
eo the s:lme
same phenomena thar
time-tuhll(ltonie socrety,
Jockty, IclemMie
eomp,m;w/;om. oo All
tclematie 50ritfy,
socrety, wlIlpu'licatious.'o
thrown OUt
out at the rime-tedmetrouie
of these terms were based on the expectation of a gradual convergence of media
75

Missing the
rhe Ner

enabled by digiralizarion.
various degrees embedded in versions
digitalization, and all were to vatious
of what
whaT Carey
Catey and Quirk called the "rhetoric of the electrical sublime."
sublime," They all
qu:\si-relishared the same technological determinism, industrial optimism, and quasi-reliof
progress
and
transcendence
through
Technology.
And
they
tended
giolls
sense
technology,
gious
plausibiliry that Tom Wolfe pointed
poinred OUt
out was central
Central
to share the low threshold of plausibility
What If He Is Right!"
Righet' It w..sn't
wasn't that you had
to McLuhanisllI
McLuhanism in his essay called"
called H'vVhat
to be fully persu..ded
persuaded that television was
was crearing
(r<:;\cing ..a global village or that we were
!O
lcaving
the
industrial
age
and
entering:Ul
all you had to think
entering an information one; ;111
leaving
was Hwhat
"what if he's right:"
righd" ..nd
and youa
you'd pay ;lttenrion."
attention."
W3S
Bur most of the tenns
terms competing for
fot the same
S:lIllC discursive space
sp;ICe focused on the
But
and computer technologies,
technologies. on the machinery,
machinery. 'The
The term illforilljorrole of networks ;lnd
matioll
society
had
a
special
appeal
that
caused
ir
to
oudau
all
these
othet
m"tioll SOCil'fJ h;ld ..
it ro oudast
theSt: other bu<:Z
buu
and to periodically
ir did in the early
eatly 1990S with the rheroric
rhetoric of
words ..nd
periodiGl1ly tesurface
resurface as it
thc
information superhighway.
the informacion
1he word injonJwtion
i,iformatiotl suggestS
suggests that meaning
tne:ming can be ttC2tcd
treated as a thing .and
and thus
The
as m..nage.able.
m:l.n:l.geable. As intdlecru..u
inlellecru:l.ls looked rowards
towards the eventual digitalization
digit:l.li:;::l.tion and
walls were
were bre.aking
bre:tking down :tnd
colbpsconvergence of media, they could see that w.alls
and collapssomerhing dispersed.
dispersed .and
:tnd granular; bur
but ;lmong
among me
rhe ambitious capitalist
c:tpitalisl
ing into something
was not
nor B..udrill.ard's
Baudrillard's implosion of meaning or Lyorard's
Lyotard's end
rhar something W;lS
elite that
but rather the
rhe rise of information. From the
rhe point
poinl of view
of totalizing discourses bur
capitalism, infonnarion
information had
advanof the power structure of G1pit..tism,
h;ld the extraordinary .advanimagine as thinglike and therefore as property,
properly,
tage of being something you could im.agine
rage
and sold. And this h;ld
had ..a broad appeal TO
as something capable of being bought .and
to
a struggling corporate
corpor:uc leadership. If you said we were mOvlllg
moving into a telematic
re1ematic
attract the attenrion of m.anufaeturers
manufacturers of networking.and
networking and tdeyou might attTact
society, )'Ou
bur if you
yOll s.aid
said we were moving into an information
informarion
communications equipment, but
wider. Tanging
e1l'ccutives to university
ranging from Hollywood executives
society, the appeal was wider,
Wall Street
Srreet brokers.
administrators ro \Vall

Digital Convergt'lCt"
COllvugwce aud
SYIlthesis: Digital
SyUlhesis:
and
the Co/tStruttio'l
oj Digital
Digital Information
tliformatio'l as Property
Property
tl"
COIl5truction of
t:tnks. Federal administrative
administr.lrive agenIn the narrow bur powerful worlds of think tanks,
cies, Congressional staffs,
informacorporate government relations offices, inform:!.sraffs, and corporare
neoclassic:l.l economics intersected,
inrel'lleCled, with
wirh powernll
powerful
tion society
sociery rhetoric and neoclassical
cion
effects. A useful illustration
illustt:l.tion of how the information society rhetoric and neoclassic:tl economics :1.11
all e:tme
came together can be found in the realm of intellectual propsical
softw:l.re could or should be owned,
owned. particularly
erty.
rhe 1970s, the idea that software
erty, In the
on the
rhe level of algorithms and patents,
p:trenrs, was at best controversial. The inventOrS
inventors
of che
rhe spreadsheer
did
not
patent
rhe
concept
because
in
the
lare
1970S
that kind
spreadsheet
the
late
chat
76

Missing the Net

Nel
Mining

ming wasn't
w:l.sn't considered patentable. A few years larer,
later, however,
howevet, Bill Gates parof thing
layed
parented control over MSDOS software into what would become one of
byed patented
the world's wealthiest corporations.
cotporations.
dJe
The COUrtS
COUtts and legislatures was
W:l.S made possible by a
This change in thinking in the
ideas. Signific..ndy,
Significantly; the discourse ofthe
of the information society lUmmed
assumed
confluence of ideOlS,
mat informarion
information already was ..a known .and
and quantifiable thing. 'The
'Ole information
that
sooery
rum informacion
infotmation into property:
property; they said it
society pundits did not say we should cum
is a thing.
thing, it is data on hard disks and mus
thus inherently
propetty
inherendy property (or at least is easily
rumed into a commodity) .and
and derived their analyses from what they
thcy took to be
RImed
rhe day largely failed to foresee
that self-el'ident
self-evident fact. (This is why the pundits of che
Napsrer problem. that is,
is. the
rhe way th..t
that computer communications would disthe Napscer
dJe
rexu 50
so:ts
problemarize the whole
perse and accelerate the
rhe process of copying textS
as to problemadze
property; they thought that the tre:atment
tre:trment of infonnarion
informuion as property
notion of property:
norian
rechllology, and so it rarely occurred
occurted to
would emerge self-evidently from the technolog)',
that in faa:
fact these
rhese very technologies might undermine the
rhe idea
ide:l. of property.)
them th..t
They ;l.Uumed
assumed that.
Their minds digira.1
digital information simply was property,
mac, since to cheir
rhat would have
fr:amework
not something mat
ha\'C to be awkwardly shoehorned into the framework
the digitaliz.arion
digitalization of culture would proceed perfUnctorily.
perfunctorily.
of property, me
rhe new enthusiasm for open
opell m.arkets.
markers. This
1his couThis was then coupled to the
driven cxacdy
exactly by logic. In me
the 1970S, the schob.rly
scholarly I;lw:rnd
law and econompling was not dri\'Cn
conservatives spent most of their energies on things like broadC<l!lt
broadcast spectrum
ics COllSt.l'V;lrives
airline deregul;ltion.
deregulation. They did not
nor focus as heavily on intellectual property
and :airline
theory. the jusrificajustificarhe rime,
time, perhaps because, from the point of view of their theory;
at the
patenrs are thin. CopyrightS
Copyrights and patents creare
crcate tempotion for copyrights and patents
encourage what economists mighr
might call inefficient and
rary monopolies and can encounge
anticompetitive tent-seeking
rent-seeking behaviors. If neocl.assic..
neoclassical1economics
cconomics doesn't exactly
e1l'actly
.anricompetitive
riglm diSCOUNt
discourse does,
does. 111e
The law and ecoencourage intellectual property. however, righu
language of classical property rightS
rights and
revil'c the langu.age
nomics movement did help revive
thisNrights talk~
talk" lent itself in a general
gener:l.l way to the norion
notion that the more rights
tights the
thisrights
better.
bener.
Wh:l.t
happened. Then,
inform:uion society rhetoric
rherotic
What happened,
then, was a loose fusion of information
markttizarion within the
with the general law and economics enthusiasm for markerization
COUrtS; this fusion laid the foundation
found:l.rion for the early
urly t980s
1980s legal decision.
COurts;
decisions that
trends:l.(
rime were
began to inflate the notion of intellectual ptOperty.
property. Key trends
at the time
software. 2nd
and later intellectual
intellecrual property
the extension of patents to genes and software,
exrended to the look 2nd
and feci
compurer program,
program. to biologi
biologiprotections extended
feel of :ta computer
:l.nd genetic
generic seGuences.
sequences, to many aspects
aspecrs of a:I. pop star's
srar's personal
perlonalcal CUltures
culrures and
ity. and eventually in the
rhe 1990S to things like business models and Amazon's
Ama:;:on's
ity,
One-dick
1984, the
rhe U.S. Congress and the U.S.
one-click book ordering. Beginning in 1984.
Department of
of$tate
proteCt
State got in the habit of demanding that other nations protect
77

the Net
Missing rhe

intellectu:.l.l properties-puticu1:lrly
tho$e conrrolled
controlled by Hollywood and
:.I.nd U.S.
intellecrual
properties-particularly those
favor:.l.ble trade agreements."
pharm:.l.ccmical companies-as a:.I. prerequisite 10
pharmaceutical
to favorable
Wh;u happened was that
rh:.l.t the general logic underlying legal decision making
m:.l.king
What
h.:lld
shifted.
Previously,
if
you
wamed
ro
exrend
property
protections
to
things
had
wanted to extend properry
unproceaed, the burden of proof was on you to justify this extnOt_
extraor_
previously unprotected,
din:.l.ry extension of
oflegal
midto-l:.l.te 1980S,
1980s, the underlying logic
din.ary
legal power. By the mid-to-Iue
reversed. The burden of
ofjllstific:.l.tion
wanred
was being revened.
justification was on the person who wanted
to
prell"ll
legal
commodific2tion;
the
:.I.ssumprion
W:.l.S
lhat,
if
money
could
be
[0 pUvtll1
commodificuion;
assumption w.as that,
intellectu21 properry
property protection was the logical direction in
made, extending intellectual
which to move.
198} MIT social scisci
A further indication
indic:.I.tion of the synthesis .:lIppeared
appeared when, in 1983
501:.1. Pool published .:lin
influential
book
tided
Talmol
professor Irhid
Ithiel de Sola
ence ptofessor
an
titled Techllol_

ogirJ of Freedom:
Frudom: On
Frrr Spreeh
ill IHI
ElectrOlli, Age." Tahllologies
TerimologirJ of Freedom
ogies
011 Frer
Speeeh ill
<lI1 Electrollir
marked the success of the cultural C3pture
capture of high technology by the economi
economic:.l.lly conservative
conserVlltive right wing. If a book with this
rhis title had
h:.l.d been published in 1935,
1935.
cally
it would most likely been a celebration
cdebr:ttion of the New Deal :.I.nd
would
have
focused
and
rurnl electrific:uion
on things like the Tennessee V311ey
Valley Authority's rural
decrrific:uion project. But
1\)8) until at least the late
bte 1990S
1\)90S teelmologJ
2ndfradolJl
together would be
~
from 1983
[ahllo!ogy and
frttdom togethet
conserv;ltivism, De
Dc Sola
Sol:.l. Pool's book played no small
popularly associated with conservativism.
m:.l.king it so. It gave conservatism
consc:rv:.l.tism its needed modernity.
role in making
Talmologies
TedlllologieJ of Freedom begins with a:.I. threatening narnti\e.
n:.l.tt:.l.tive. The first chape1l:.l.p
ter. tided
titled ~A Shadow Darkens,~ begins by asserting
assening that "for
-for five hundred years
ter,
fought. and in a:.I. few countries
coumries won,
won. for
fur the right of people to
a struggle W:.l.S
was fought,
freely. unlicensed, uncensored,
uncensored. and
:.I.nd uncontrolled....
uncontrolled .... As speech
speak and prim
print freely,
five.century growth of :.I.n
increasingly flows over those electronic media, the five-century
an
spe:.l.k without controls may be endangered.~'
endangered.~" De
unabridged right of citizens to speak
Sola Pool's book made a number of now-familiar
now-f:llniliar moves: it pointed to
ro the comro digitalization
digit:.l.lization as
:.I.S having .a:.I. potential for enacting a
illg media convergence due to
ing
cl:.1ssic211y liberal utopia of free-speaking
free.speaking abscract
:.I.bstracr individu2ls,
classically
individuals, and it
ir demoni;l:ed
demonized
the Washington, DC regulatory apparatus
m2in threat to the enactment
appararus as the main
enacrmem
pasr history of free speech through distinctly
distincdy
of that utopia. It looked at the past
rose-colored
rosecolored glasses; the five-hundred-yea.r
five-hundred-year srruggle
struggle of which he spoke did not
not until the middle decades of the twentieth
include. say, the fact
faCt rhat it was nor
fund:.l.menr21 in U.S. law would acruaUy
actu211y
century that the idea that free speech is fundamenral
cemury
:.I.chieved. in no small part
pUt due to efforts of wobblies and other r:.l.diuls
radicals in
be achieved,
the t910S.
19~os."'I And it equated free markers.
markets, corpor:tte
corporate autonomy, and free speech
in a common but slippery way, where in one breath the word ~edom
ftudoltl means,
m:.l.rket competition for local phone service, the next it means abandoning
say, market
pro'
:.I.ntirrust
regul:.l.tion, and the next it means standing on a soap box in a park proantitrust regulation,
claiming one's political views.
78

me

Net
Missing me Nel

Sob Pool's book in its day was to

to describe techBut the key function of de Sola
nlaner of legal tights.
maner of simple
nological management as a maner
rights. Seen as a matter
Ieg:.1l process, there's arguably litrIe
litde or no difference
creating a right
Iepl
diJfert;n~ between ctuting
righr :.I.nd
,md
agree
engaging in intrusive regulation, and lll:.l.ny
many lawyers would be happy to agrtt
1\)40S or so, people hardly used the term intelime/
with that assessment. (Until the 1940S
/l<tllill proptrrJ;
property; what we call
c:.l.lI intellecr:ua.l
intellectu:ll property today was back
b:.l.ck then thought
ItaIUlI
many as a loose bundle of privileges, more in the category of welfare
welf:Jre than
of by m.any
property.) But putting the word righrs
rightJ from
front :.I.nd
center
had
:
.
I
.
cruci:.l.l
and cemer
a crucia.l ideological
rime. On Ihe
h:.l.nd. the word rights
rigllts harnessed technology
rechnology and
:.I.nd
impact at the time.
the one hand,
pro_m2rket emhusiasms
enthusiasms to
ro work in broad currems
currents in American culture.
culrure. Tech
pro_market
Technology and
:md modernity were no longer on the side of pl2nning
planning or the public good
or an example
eX:.l.mple of what democratic government could accomplish; chey
they were on
righn, and government
governmenr was their enemy, JUSt as it was the enemy of
the side of rights,
Brand would cite
rights. By 1987,
[987, in a book celebrating MIT's media !:.lb,
lab, Stewart Bra.nd
Tedmo/ogieJ of
Freedom as
u a key inspiration."
de Sola Pool's uchnologil'J
ofFrudotll

me

The Political Economic Meaning of the Microcomputer

matter of figuring out how it works.
Making sense of a new gadget is not
nor just a malter
It
has
to
be
given
soci:.l.lmeaning.
Milch
of
this
is about standard social
soci:.l.l variables
h
social meaning. Much
like status and appropriateness.
:.I.ppropriareness. Carolyn Marvin
M:.I.rvin and others have
hal'e pointed
out
.like
poinred OUt
W:.l.S introduced, phone company
:.I.nd users
UM:rs
mat when the telephone was
com~ny executives and

aIikc: worried about whether this new technology should be limited to business
alike
orher purposes; there
rhere was considernble
managers or allowed into the home for other
considerable
about the possibility that young single women might get
panic, for example, "bollt
theit hands on the powerful new device, thereby debasing it.'l Similarly, when
their
microcompUterS first appe:.l.red
microcomputerS
appeared in everyday life, it wasn't quite clear where they
belonged
in
the
social
order. Was having a computer on one's desk a sign of
be.longed
Was this thing
rhing with a keyboard for managers or for sechigh or low status?
StatUS~ \Vas
rnaries~ \Vere
Were they for the home or for the
rhe office? Were they for games or
ra:aries~

serious
lerious purposes like blldgeu~
budgets: Wu
\Vas using a computer fashionable,
fashionable. a mark of a
of
prowess
worth
bragging
:.I.bout,
or
was
it
simply
a routine technical task,
kind
bnd
about,
like
underlings~ But as people sought
like: photocopying. something better
bener left to underlings?
answers
chat suggested somesome
In.swers to all these questions.
questions, patterns were established that
abouc the relarions
thing broader: the
rhe microcomputer had something to tell
teU us about
relations
between politics.
politics, economics, :.I.nd
and each orher.
other. This widely trumpeted new tech:.I.bout
nology became a trope.
trope, an ideological condensation symbol.
symbol, for thinking about
big social relationships.
rc:l:.l.rionships.
The answers to these questions were not
nOt foregone or fully determined by the
the technology itself. In this period, the French, for example,
eX:llnple. were
chaUcter of [he
character
79

Missing the
me Net

targe and growing numbers typing on keyboards to produce letters OIl

also in brge
On
screens powered by microchips-on the Minitel terminals widely supplied by
w.n a project created largely by the govern_
govern.
the French phone service. Yet Minitel was
etTl!Il!communicarions),
ment-owned PTT (Poste, Tl!Il!phone,
Telephone,et
Telecommunications), and it thus began
em:lil and retrieving information,
rather than as a
life as a:a networked device, for email
inform:ation, r:ather
smnd-:done object. Bec:luse
stand-:alone
Bec:ause in France digitalization eneered
entered everyday life via :aa
structure, computing had different implications fOt
different political economic structure.
for
meaning and use. The Fteneh
French experienced a connecu:d
connected telecommunieltions
telecommunicarions sysme:aning
tem provided by the government; the box in their homes was a means of access to
fcllow citizens.
States, in conthat larger system and, through it, to fellow
citizens, In the United Srares,
th.ar
rrasr,
isolated object provided, :It
tr.I.St, people experienced an isobted
at least as far
filt as the press
pres.s
capitalist entrepreneurs and inventors. One was a means of
was concerned, by elpit2.list
othet$; the othu
othet was an isolated box, purely under one's
access for connecting (0
to others;
own Control. In the broad view, both experiences lent themselves to oversimplifi_
cations,
illdustry sat atop decades of
ofgovernmentgovernment- funded
cations; the US microcomputer industry
in
Fr:mce,
privare industry was
research
in
microchip
and
computer
design,
and,
France. priv:ate
rese:arch
terminals and related equipment. Both
Minitd tenninals
deeply involved in manufacturing Minitel
corpor:.lte liberal
Iibet2.l in the sense of business-government interdeefforts remained corporate
pendency. But such deep-level patterns were not immediarely
immediately appartnt,
app:arent. On the
in
the
case
of
the
microcomputer.
subtle
and
intimate
aspeCts
surface,
surf:a.ce.
microcomputer,
aspectS of meaningrightw:lrd swing in Americall
creation and the rightward
American political economic policy became
cre2tion
intertwined.
intertwined,
was not purely spontaneous or disorg:aniud.
disorgani::ed, It is true that
This intertwining
inrertWining wu
in rhe
1\l70S
rhe
idea
of
mass
marketing
a
general-purpose
computer small and
the 1970S the
cheap enough to be bought by individuals was simply missed by the established
vacuum set the stage for some
corporate players in the industry, and the resulting V2cuum
boardrooms :md
and otigislilall computer firms working off the radar of corPOrate
corporate bo:ardrooms
origismall
nating
in
the
hobbyist
community,
like
Apple
and
Microsoft,
to
be
catapulted
he
n:ning
pl3yers, with the side effect thac
th:u the microcomputers
mictocomputers
into the r:anks
ranks of major playus,
playfulness," But, by the early 1980S, the
arrived imprinted with signs of hobbyist playfulness,"
:lrrived
microcompllter m:lrket
market was no longer being ignored. \,\,Ihen
microcomputer
When Apple and Microsoft
with
a
host
of competitors
cOlllpetilors like Frankwere Still
still modest-sized
modest-si::ed companies f2ced
faced
lin, Radio Shack, Sinclair,
Sindair. Commodore, Osborne, and Kaypro, American media
and some segments of the population were :llready
already deeply obsessed by the micro:lnd
ir 1:Icked
coordinated. mission-driven characcomputer. Even [hough
though it
lacked the highly coordinated,
ter of other consumer product introductions, the microcompUler"revolution~
microcomputer "revolution" of
[he
cerrain way,
way. a highly organi::ed
the early
e:l.rly 1980s was, in a certain
organized evellt.
event. What the 1980s
lacked in policy manifestos and industry consortia, it made up for with a chorus
of mythologizing thar
that resonated from the White House to the media to tile
rhe local
computer store.
Store,
80

Missing the Ner

MicrO<Q/nPIIUrS liS
Microcomputers
as AllticollSumer
Allticollsumu Producu
Pronllets
s<;holars
I\lSOS have often turned to
Scholars in search of the computer zeitgeist of the 1980s
cultural texts like Apple's ~1984
~1984~ TV ad,"
ad," Willi3m
William Gibson's ur-cyberstriking culrural
computetS like
punk novel Nwromallcer,
Nruromanctr, or films with an
:an ominous depiction of computers
Terml/la/or (1984).)0
(1984).'" As fascinating
texu are,
fucinating as these dark textS
War Games (1983) or Terminator
Ihe culture,
it is risky to assume that they actually represented the core of the
culture. Apple's
~1984"
-1984- ad was only broadcast once nationally,
narionally, Nrurolllilliar
Neuromancer began as a narrow cult
and Terminator
TermillAlOr owe more to
to 2001'S
dassic, and War Games :.md
200"S HAL than to the rapappcared in
idly proliferating microcomputerS
microcomputers appearing in Stores
stores as rhose
those films appeared
at the significance of computers in the everymeaters. If one really wanrs
wants to get :1[
theaters.
Americans in thar
to starr with someday culture of AmeriClfls
that period, it might be better to
thing more widespread: the then-novel
then-novd experience of buying one's firsr
first compUter.
computer.
Today, this might seem mundane, but ar
at the rime, as millions of AmeeiClIlS
Americans ",ent
went
Tocby,
anyrhing bur.
through the experience, it was anything
but. Opening the box of a Kaypro, Apple,
or Radio Shack microcomputer, assembling the pieces, and having one's firsr
first
of
ryping
on
a
keyboard
and
seeencounter wirh
rhe
then-remarkable
experience
typing
keyboOird
with the then-remOlrbble
ing corresponding letters appear on :aa monochrome screen wu
was iu
irs own cullUt:l1
culrut2.l
event.
t/::chnological innov:atiollS
innovations into the home for the
The 1980s brought numerous technological
6nt
time:
videotape
recorders,
fax
machines,
and
answering machines, to name
nanle a
first
fax;and ;answering
few. But these objects
objecrs were novel only in the sense
that more people could afford
RW.
sellSe th:lt
came from companies
mem; we had all heard
them;
heaed of these things before, and they elme
TIle microcomputer was something in a class by
familiar. The
with which we were familiar,
itself. Before the early 1980S, ordinary Americans never imagined they would
evet own a computer; computers were thought to be giant expensive things for
~r
foe
usc or desire,
which an ordinary individual would have
ha\'e no use
desire. So, it represented
middle-class Americans were
distinct when swelling numbers of middle-dass
something quite distiner
SUddenly
thumbing
through
computer
magazin/::s,
rhe mysteries of
m:lgazines. deciphering the
suddenly
new objects like floppy disks and new concepts like sonw3te,
parricipating in
software, :lnd
and participating
Water-cooler
the details of these new machines.
water-cooler conversations about rhe
[he rime was the backdrop
b;lckdrop of a corpot:lteAn essential part of th/::
the context of the
that in a~ corporate
dominated consumer economy,
It
has
long
hcen
observed
economy.
been
manufacturtrs consumer products
producrs rend
tend to become
economy dominated by mass manufactUrers
more and more alike. Jeans, beer, soap, and eventually cars hccome
become nearly undifftt/::ntiated
The marketing problem thus becomes one ofgenerating
of generating
Rrenriated commodities. TIle
Iinle
exists-hence
the
habir
of
slick,jinglean impression of distinction wher/::
where lirtle
habit
slick,
jingleand image-dominated advertising reliant on SI0g:105,
slogans, celebrity endorsements, and
lifestyle imaget}~
imagery, advertising that tells you next to nothing abour
about the product and
character of this trend
everything about
abour its cultural associations,
associations. The
11\e enervaring
enervating characrer
trcnd
~,.

81

Missing [he
,he Net

II

rime is one
om: of the weoUrnuses
weaknesses of consumer capitalism, likely one of the core
over time
reasons that groups the world over at odd intervals respond with indifference
rusons
and sometimes go off in
or hostility to consumer capitalism and irs institutions :md
alternatives.
search of altematil'U.
to me
the consumer mainstream
mainstteam by taking up
Many Americans find alternatives to
avocations that involve constant study
srudy of technical details; getting
hobbies or avoations
anrique cars, or playing the bagpipes
involved in raising purebred dogs, restoring antique
in
a
subculture
of
expert
knowledge shared through dubs,
clubs,
requires immersiOn
immersion
books-:I subculture
subculrure in which
personal networks, newsletters,
newsletters. magazines,
magazines. and books-a
satisfying in its own right, and the activity is beyond
substance matters, labor is sarisfying
the reach of national name brand consumer advertising.
The proliferation of the microcomputer
microcompurer in the early 1980s began uas :.la ver.
version of th:n
that hobbyist subcultunl
subcultural experience. For the ever growing numbers of
individuals thinking :.lbout
about committing the substantial expense necess;ary
necessary {Q
to buy
individwls
cost two
twO or three rimes
times the cost
COSt of :.la
:.la microcomputer-even the cheaper ones COSt
television set, and some of the popular ones appro:.lched
approached the price of a functional
information available, inviting study, compari.
compariused car-there was a world of infonnation
:md thought, all energiud
energized by the sense of excitement of being a part of
sons, and
something new.
The
c::onrrasr
TIle early days of the microcomputer industry thus provided a sharp contrast
('lpitllliJt alum:.l
alternato the traditional consumer experience and rhereby suggested a capitalist
was indeed new, compliured,
complicared,
tive {Q
to conventional consumerism. 111e
til"!:
The technology W:.lS
:lOd constantly changing. and SO
so the producTS
disproducts in question
quCSt:ion often were indeed dis
2nd
connast to,
ro, say, Coke or Levi's Jeaw,
Jeans, concrete infonn2tion
information .1bour
abour
tinct. In deep contnst
technical apacities
c:lpacities 2nd
and how they worked was in fact useful and
the products' technica.l
just :.la matter
marter of picking it up :.It
at the
relevant. Buying a microcomputer was not JUSt
and plugging it
ir in; it involved becoming part of
of:la world of constant reading
store :.lnd
Store
speed. program
:lnd
and discussion, a world in which RAM capaciry, microprocessor speed,
matters worthy of much attention.
compatibility, and peripherals were matUrS
[n the 1970S, microcomputer buyers were largely hobbyists and others with
In
to technical communities through clubs, school,
schooL
technical proficiency connected {Q
or work. By the early 1980S, however, much of the
rhe purch;uing
was
being
done
by
purch:lSing W:lS
to such commua wider community of people who had no ongoing connection to
or by middle
nities-by people with pure curiosity, by small business owners, Ot
level managers who could use the office supply budget and thus operate outside
the supervision of cenrral
central management. These individuals were less able to rely
che
011 clubs or other informal networks to get information
inform:lrion and thus largely had to
on
to develop an understanding of what these things were
rely on the print media to
nOt one should buy one. It
Ir is in jusr
jUst such a conrext that print
and whether or not
media an
can pl2Y
playaa powerful role. The early 1980S was
W:l.S marked by an explosion of

82

Missing
MUsing the Ner
Net

the mainStream
mainstream press and in
popular commentary on microcomputers, both in che
ropic. Magazines that
rhat began in
.a proliferation of new magazines devoted to the topic.
the 19705 :IS
as blackand.....hite
black-and-while narrow-audience newsletters
newslerrers (Cwltivt
(Crtmivt Computing.
Computing,
lhc:
Byte) adopred
adopted glossy fonnats
forman and sweUed
swelled with 2dvertising.
advertising. and .1a host of new811t)
comers entered
enrered the field.
media covenge
coverage took the fonn
form of buying advice for novices. As
Most of this medi2
magazine racks began to fill with new computer publications and newspaper artirhroughdes about microcomputers began popping up with ever more frequency throughthe United Srates
States between 1980 and 1983.
out che
1981, the tone moved from curiosity to
~whar are theset
these:'" to "now
-now that you know you're
a kind of upbeat urgency, from ~what
how." In March of 1980, for example, the New York
Yllrk Times
Timtj
ro buy one, here's how.~
going to
"Computers Made to Feel
Home:' which was largely
ran a short piece titled ~Computers
Feci at Homc.~
anecdotes supplied by the owners of that
rhar new phenomenon.
phenomenon, the
comprised of anecdores
store." The article notes the rapid growth of the fledgling
Aedgling indusrryindustrycomputer Store."
a Store owner says, "For
-For the
rhe first time since we've been in business,
busillCSS, there W:lS
was a
.1
While the
rhe article briefly
brieRy mentions brands and pricesChristmas rush this
rhis year."
year.~ \VhiIe
Christm:lS
TRS-8o-at this early stage, the article's tOne
tone
of the Apple II and Radio Shack TRS80-at
nOtes that computer stores "have
~have the atmosphere
is rather bemused; (he
che article notes
poillts to store employees' enthusiasm
emhusiasm for games. To
of a friendly dubdub" and points
arc doing with home computers, the artide
article relates how (:.l
(:I bit
explain what people are
improbably) the children of one new computer-owning family are assigned the
task of programming an Apple II to keep household budgets. Another customer
taslc
reported to
to have used his computer ~to
"to h2ndicap
h:ll1diClp horses on the theory that it
is ccported
another programmed his computet
computer to
would improve his gambling profits,~
profits." and :mother
(rain.
run his son's electric train.
ye:lr, the
rhe New York Times
Timej ran
rail a similar piece, ~A
-A Brighr New
The following year,
Computers." Here the tone is more
1110re confidenr.!'
confident. I ' Also directed
World of Home Computers:
at the
lhe first-time
firsr-time potential buyer of a microcomputer,
microcomputet, this piece was several
sections: "Doing the Homework:
-Tips on Buytimes larger and divided into sectiOns:
Homework," "Tips
ing.- ~Where
~\Vhere to Shop: :.lnd
and a glossary of computer terms explaining the meaning."
111is article expressed
exptessed little doubt that
rhat buying a coming of words like printer. This
and
worthwhile
entetprise.
Quoting
the
advice
of university
puter
was
a
serious
purer
enterprise.
first study
smdy computer
professors, the piece recommends that potential buyers firsr
course. h
It gets
perha'ps take a COUtSC.
getS into more detail about
magazines and books and perhaps
ttthnic:ll aspectS,
as~crs, explaining. for example, that ~programm2ble
~programl1lable memory is meatechnica.l
lured
in
the
1,0005
of
byres.
A
byte
is
the
binary
code the m2chine
machine hu
has :lSsigned
assigned
IUr'cd
I,OOOS bytes.
compurer memories usually nnge
range
to every English letter and number. Home computer
J2,000 bytes, or 12K.
)1K. K stands for
between :lbou(
about 1,000 bytes, or JIK,
K, and about 12,OOO
ltiJ.o: VCRs were new :It
rime, roo,
(00, but this W:l$
different buying
Itilo,"
at the time,
was an entirely diffetent
~rience.
expetience.

8J
83

rhe Net
Ner
Missing the

The press was happy to print coundess such arricles that reported on the COnstant proliferation of new produClS associared with the microcomputer. Compa_
nies were consundy announcing new models, new companies were constantly
jumping into the game. and the third-parry industries of software a.nd periph_
erals were consta.ndy sending out press releases a.nd otherwise hawking their
wares, Reponers were happy to write reviews of all these products-this was a.
ra.te new journalistic specialty in a. tight economr-and companies were happy to
buy ad\'enising that would Supporr this reporting, The potential purchaser, after
perhaps having his or her curiosity inflamed by someone at the office or an article
like the one in the New York 7imts. would thtn have a plethora. of informa.rion
available at the nearest magazine ra.ck. ready for browsing.

Use Value mid Utopia

Signilicandr. while the press grew ever more confident about the value of purcha.sing a microcomputer in the early 1980s. what people were actually doing
with them remained obscure. In passing. the 1981 New York Times piece mentions
games, music synthesis. and educational uses, but nOt in any detail. Between the
[980 piece and the [981 piece. it is as if the newspaper went from wondering what
a microcomputet was for straight to assuming that it had a use-without ever
figuring OUt what that use was, True. rhe 1980-83 period was clle time when various specialized communities were discovering specific uses; :lcademics.journalins, and sectetarial staffs were discovering word processing. and small businesses
and lnid-level managers were discovering the spreadsheet, But it would not be
until the second half of the 1980s that the mainstream press would discuss these
applications in any detail. and e\'en then it would be more with an -ofcourse- tone,
more &om the HSumprion of usefulness tha.n an exploration or explanation ofit."
A sizable Ntws~tk overview of personal computers from early 1982 is typical." Tided -To Each His Own Computer; the ess.ay begins:
lnugine a ....ordmllm $0 wiK thar he can easll}' comprdlend and manipul:ue lI\O<'C
words than fIlO5t propk ever UK, men sptW [hem out-with spelling erron corrcered-on a high-speed primer. lnugine ~ teuher with in6nite p~rience who !us
the devilish abilil:)' to spot your weak points md drill you on them, in everything
from typing to French. A m~ster sportSITL:ln who neVer rim of pbying rour
favorite game. A researcher who, wirh ~ little help from rhe relephone, an C":l!l up
rhe world'. great boolu, the breaking ",""S, rhe be" buy in a lo.:al dtess shop and
the lares[ breakrhrough in kidney research, and bring rhem all inro the privacy of
your living room, And imagine all rhese rhings wrapped IIp in a form so prorean
thar even its creators have no idea of its Iimils-if there are all}'. -il,erI' yo" have it,
rhe personal compuror,
84

Missing d,e Ner

1his kind of dramatic narrative does not exactly explain what the actual practical
uses of the computers available at that time might be; some of the uses described
abo'ooc were more than a decade away. some have yet to be perfected (-a teacher
tVith infinite patience~), and some were grandiose construals of fairly mundane
taSks (describing a word processing ptogn.m as -a wordsmith so wise-).
\Vord processing. the most common use of microcompurers at the rime (and
remaining so at lQSt until the popularization of the internet). gets twO shon senEeIlttS in this 44oo-word anicle: -Wa.nt to write a novel! Load in a word-processing progr.mt that lets you and your computer manipulate words on a page, edit
the text and print out Rawless copy,- The article w;u:es enthusiastic about microcompuu:rs as educational tools-a common seUing point in the early t98os-but
laYS next to nothing about what students ace actually doing with the machines.
Computers, the anicle claims, are -emerging as educational tools.Classroom 56) iii unlike any other at Central High School in St. Paul, Minn.
There is no tl'<lCe o( chalk and etaKn, school desks or blukboards. Instead, euh
of the srodents in Central High's computer lab sits in from o( an Apple Il plus
microcompurer, and rhe only sounds are.rhe faim clicking ofconsole keys and sporadic beeps (rom the muhines, \Vhen rhe Minneapolis area was hit by a blizzard
recentl}', the smdenn were dismissed ,u noon and rhe school cleared in minuresexcept for the kids in rhe computer lab, who refused ro go home,
Of the roughly three puagraphs of this thirry-seven-paragraph article devoted
to discussion of potential uses. the approach is not a careful discussion that compares traditional against microcomputer-aided methods but an uncritical. breathless rattling offof tantaliz.ing potenrials.lhe force driving the market; the anicle
opines,
is the incredIbk versatilit}' o( the machines.. A penonaI computer C.1n be used for
:In a1mosr limitk.ss \';lriery of tash. When \V'tlliam D, O'Neill get.. home to suburban Washington from hi.. job as Dircaor fOr l\,... va1 Warfar~ at the Pent2g0n,
for example, be head.s for hi.s baserne:nt.l1icb on his personal computer-and goes
to worl< on his sond novd.1he Remo=less Deep; a thriller .1boul submarine
warfare. Alan Tobey, owner of rhe \Vlne and the: People: shop in Bedcdcy; CaIif~
uses his computer to wrile: recipes ro ba6nce the hops. malt .1nd CKher ingt'Cdienrs
for hi. own home:brewed beer.. ,. Hood Sails in Marblehud, M.1s.s., uses personal
computers to design custom sails (or J=hts in irs 15 s.aillofrs .1round the world.
Or UK the computc:r to gc:nerare musical tone.:rnd it becomes.1 musici'm's instrument. Libera:.. composer use:s his computer to help with .1rrangements for the
King of Kitsch, .1ndJohn Cudc:r, dc:sign cngineer for rhe Gratc:ful Dead, uSeS.1n
Apple II backstage ro nne-rune the elecrronics during the rock group's performanCeS. Ir can also serve a loftier purpose, Ihe Rolling StOnes have an Apple th.1r
helps rheir official biographer Store informarion "nd write the group's history."
85

Missing rhe Ne[

particularly insightful overview of what was happening at the time

dme or
Or
This is nor a parricularly
a prediction
predicrion of what was going to
to happen.
h;appen. The article does nOt
not mendon
menrion spread_
sheers,
The
sheets, email,
email. or discussion lists, and while it mentions CompuServe and lbe
contains no mention of the imcrnct,
Source it certainly comains
interner. It has no discussion of
the obsessive.
obsessive, addicting quality of inter.l.ction
interaction with computers or of the gamelike
g:1Il1clike
che
the computer activity even among
:I1ll011g those who were
wcre nOt
nor using
quality of much of rhe
them ro
to play games.
chem
[ell che
the story of che
the microcompurer,
microcomputer, not
nor in terms of
What the article does is tell
i[5 immediate pr:a.ctica.l
practical uses, buc
bur as a narr.l.tive
narrative of hope. of porential.
potential. It offers the
irs
sellSe that he or she has che
the opportunity to
to panicipare
p:lrticiparc in gr.l.nd.
grand, unfinunfin_
reader a sense
ished developments. The
11,C vagueness about use was chus
thus rherorica.l.ly
rhetorically turned intO
into
:loom :lny
p:lrticular uses rhat
that
any particular
a strong point; in the absence of hard knowledge about
trotted OUt
out:.lS
as evidence of usefulness.
worked, any anecdote could be rrotted
It was only a monch
month bf:fore
that Tirnt's
Time) J3January
198a issue declared rhe
the com_
January 1982
before rhat
purer the "man
~man of the year." The
1he from-cover
front-cover image was of a grey plaster
plastet manikin
pucer

styli::ed microcomputer. The accompanying

:lccompanying essay connins
comaillS
slumped in front of a sryfued
than Newsweek's
NewJlI'uk's almon
contempotaneous
more sociological gener.ilizarions
geller;lliutions chan
almost contemporaneous
posrindusrri:LI, edenic.
edenic, "d~elec
piece, quoting, for enmple, Tomer's prediction of a postindustrial.
tronic corrage:
conage,~ while brieRy~balancing"
briefly"balancing~ such claims wich
with a few quores
quotes from skepcronic
the piece is similarly vague :lbout
Wei::enbaum. Bur rhe
tics like Weizenbaum.
about effective uses, chooslist anecdotes
:lnecdotes thar
that range from the mundane ro
to the
rhe improbable,
ing to breathlessly liu
retrospeCt know to be the key trends
rrends at
ar the time; rhe
while missing what we in retrospect
rhe internet, or Minirel, all
essay does not mention the spreadsheet, ARPANET, the
rime by simply browsing some trade
rrade
of which could have been researched at the time
publications.
TlJl~ Feeling
of tile Market:
Milrket:
TIK
Fuling ojthe
Lone ltldill;dull/s
Individu(lIJ Exercising
Exercis;ug Mastery
MllStery oller
over Objurs
Objrw
Lom

importance to Time's
Timt's :innual
:lnnual pub
pubThere's no reason to ascribe much sociological imporrance
judgment of rhe
the magazine's editors,
liciry
licity stunt,
stum, which reRects only the subjective judgmem
their solid circulation figures than for their prescience or wisknown more for theit
Il0t to imagine that
chat :la
dom about
abour current events and social trends. But it's hard not
the cover-on newssunds,
ncw5$c:mds, coffee tables, waiting rooms.
rooms, :lIld
and in secondglance at rhe
numbf:r of weeks-helped
ary media commentary:.lS
commentary as it saturared
saturated the culture for a number
solidify, nor JUSt the growing sense rhat
thar computers
compucers were somehow deserving of
serious atrention
attention and expense,
ell'pense. bur
but thac
that chey
they were things,
tMltis, Whac
What was being called
wu computers-not
nOt networking. nor
ro everyone's :lttencion
co
:rrrention was
compmers-noc computing. nor
nor
1r as Time W:l$
W:1.S concerned, a
novel forms of communicating. A computer was, as ftr
compuring.
thing. not a human action. The entire set of activities associated with computing.
86

Miuing the
rhe Ner
Nel

the
still highly concentrated industries of microchip manufacruring
manuftcturing upon which
the srill
the
the pressures to try
cry co
to rum
turn life imo
into numthe microcomputer industry depended, [he
legal. political.
political, and cultural bactles
clata, information,
informacion,
berS, the legal,
barrles over control over dara,
te1l:cu:l1 production: all this was
W:lS
and commodification, the shifting modalities of textual
something one uw
saw on a shelf in a store,
score, purchased.
purclla$ed, and
reduced to ...a box, a thing, somerhing
away, all for che use of oneself, for an individual, plain and simple.
$imple. The
carried away;
comple1l:ities were all inside the box. The
TI,e microcomputer occasioned
occ:lsioned the reifica(l[lIJ\plexities
don
digit:llization.
tion of digiralization.
In the 1980s,
[980$, as a result, these small computers provided an immensely useful
ftith in markers.
markets. Parr
Pat"[ of this
object lesson for the proponents of the neoliberal faith
rhe overlapping communities of politicians and upper
worked simply because the
5evd corporace
corporate management looked at the rapidly growing microcomputer induslewd
cry
from
a distance, watched che
the rise of new industrial empires like Apple, Comuy
paq, and Microsoft, and saw a powerful argument for reviving che
the belief that the
I*!'
business wodd
world was indeed rhe
che product of emrepreneurial
Giam global
glob:!;l
buRness
entrepreneurial initiative. Gianr
enrerprises from Coca-Cola to GM co
to General Electric
Elecrric norwithstanding,
notwiths[:!;llding. percarerprises
haps the economic wodd
world was not
nor dominated
dominared by an established interlocking grid
baps
ollumbeting bureaucr.l.ric
bureaucratic corpor.l.tions
corporations in league with the governmem;
nor
.Iumbering
government; it was not
system thOlt
chac Vietnam era pundirs
pundits and :antiwar
amiwar protestors complained ...bout.
about.
-Ibe s}'Stem"
che business world was simply a wodd
world of innovative.
innovative, risk-taking
ri$k-uking individu
individuMaybe the
lib
competing
wich
one
anocher,
after
:III.
... oornpering with
another.
all.
microcompucer thus provided a sophisticated.
sophisticated, high.tech
high-tech glitter to the
The microcomputer
free enterprise: it became
Reagan er.l.
era enthusiasm for markets,
markers, deregulation, and (ree
Rag2n
an icon that
thac stood ror
for wh:at's
what's good :abour
about the m:arket,
market, giving leaders the wodd
world O\'l:r
over
In
an
Cll'tra
incentive
to
pursue
neoliberal
policies.
Gorbachev
era
Soviet
officials
ID extra
ro
nroliberal
_have claimed it was the West's astonishing success in market-driven high techaoIogy, as much as anything else.
else, chat
that first inspired Soviet leadership ro
to look for
ooIogy.
DeW, market-friendly economic models in the 1980s.'"
[9805.'" Nroliber.l.l
Neoliberal pundits crowed
DCW.
microcomputer indusrry, and managers and officials who might ocherotherabout
Ibol.u the microcompurer
skepcical of the nroliber.l.l
nooliberal theories were given
wise be skeptical
givcn pause.
ac the level of policy and grand theory. For the
rhe growing numBut it wasn't all at
ben of individuals who took the plunge and bought a microcomputer, there were
bers
dUngs about
rhe experience
ell'perience thar
chat STood
stood out from the rest of one's life. There
TI,ere was
things
abour the
the utonishing
.lStonishing effect of an exploding
ClCploding muketplace
riding the wave of Moore's
rbe
marketplace tiding
Law. In the search for cars or dothing,
corpot:lrions seemed the same,
ume, the ptices
prices
clothing. COtpotations
the innovations were b.rge1y
I:lrgely cosmetic. For microcomputers,
ahrays rose, and rhe
alw:ays
bowever, new prices, new capabilities, and new companies were being announced
however,
011 an almost weekly basis. The act of buying thus had a sharply
on
shatply different feel.
'There also was the contrast with the popular memory of new technologies
cechnologies of
There
die
during which new technologies were rhings
things like nuclear
the previous two decades, duting

-me

87

lhe Net
Missing the
Ncr

[I

energy, supersonic airliners, and space rravel, each of which had come to involve
huge, inaccessible institutions, various degrees of disappointments and dangers.
and mysterious complexities that never seemed to clear themselves up, at least
in the eyes of the average person. Microcomputers provided a sharp contrast to
all those ambiguous or negative connotations. Against that backdrop of techno_
logical disappointments. there was something wondrous about having an actual
computer on one's desk, in one's home or office, a clean Little bit of modern tech_
nology that came from small companies with cute names, that ptoduced no roar
or smoke and offeted no major safety hazard; motorized garden reols were dearly
more dangerous.
Finally, for all their little mysteries-in those days, concepts like booting from
a floppy disk or typing in cryptic commands were completely opaque to an average user-those mysteries could be generally collquered. Most users would eventu_
ally learn their way around the basics, and the very process of doing so gave one a
growing sense of mastery. Microcomputers were self-contained boxes, it seemed,
efon could be brought eneirely under one's own wnereL
that with effon
For any ideology to gain traction in a complex society, for it to become a widely
shared form of common sense, it has to be made to fed right. This is cenainly
true at election time, but also more broadly true on the level of the contours of
political discourse, on the level that shapes what pundits, journalists, essayists,
officials, and politicians perceive as imponant as they consider legislation, policies, or their next career move. Not everyone who bought a computer came to
believe in the free market, of course. Ideological shifts rarely work that mechanically or cleanly. But the experience of reading about, buying, and using microcomputers created a kind of congruence between an everyday life experience and
the neoclassical economic vision-the vision of a world of isolated individuals
operating apart, withom dependence on others, individuals in a condition of sclfmastery, rationally calculating prices and technology. A Weberian might call it an
elective affinity between the appearance of the microcomputer and the neoliberal
faith; a student of cultutal studies founder Stuan Hall might call it an aniculation." But the poine is that, in 1983, even the bearded Marxist professor, using
'; lAinch floppies to boot up his new IBM PC in preparation for working on his
latest essay, might at that moment feel a little less in a condition of solidarity with
the downtrodden and perhaps a bit more like an ambitious Lockean individual,
cutting new ground in isolation. The Marxist's established convictions might prevent him from doing anything with that feeling. But for the much larger number
whose political convictions were less fixed that feeling might help them see sense
in the neoliberal vision. Maybe markets weren't so bad. Maybe they were even a
little bit thrilling.

88

Missing rhe Ner

Beyond Utilitarianism:
The Invention of the Hacker as Romantic Hero
But better that thcy be a bit thriJling than merely rational. The problem with the
kind of autonomous individualism associated with markets, the rational, utilityl'IW'imizing individual of utilitarian fable, is that it is so dry; it reduces the free
redious, calculating
caJculatingshopkeeper.
individual to a rediolls,
shopkeeper. The attraction of the press to Steve
jobs and other microromputer success stories was not only that they fit the Reagan era entrepreneurial story. If they had been metely successful entrepreneurs
in, say. ball-bearing manufacture, economists might have been pleased, but the
attention would have been much smaller. Classic utilitarian theory suggests that
widespread selfish behavior in a marketplace leads to the betterment of all, but it
does not celebrate rebellion for its own sake or care about the colorful details of a
capitalist's private life. The stOty of personal computers being manufactured and
capitalist'S
programmed by youth in their garages, however, had an added romantic appeal.
The microcomputer companies of the early 1980S were young, tweaking the noses
of (he established computer businesses. The story of young Jobs and Wozniak
carlY,I970s
bonding while building boxes to cheat the phone system in the early
1970S was
repeated endlessly in the business press, not because it implied rational, selfinterested behavior-it was a college prank, involving petty theft-but because
it suggested a rebellious attitude towards the powers that be, expressed through
w:hnical aptitude. \Vhen Jobs recruited PepsiCo presidene John Sculley to be
CEO of Apple Computer in the 1983, he famously told Sculley, "do you want to
sell sugar watet for the rest of your life or do yOIl want to come with me and
change the worldt' In strict marketplace theory, entrepreneurial individuals are
DOt supposed to care about changing the world; the invisible hand is supposed to
take o.re of thar. Selling sugar water at a profit is a perfectly rational thing to do.
BUt America's romance with the entrepreneur was a roman.e; flamboyant young
characters with dreams of changing the world were much more attractive than
mere profit maximizers.
Fred Turner has artfully explained the role of Steven Lery's 1984 book Hack
ers and a subsequent conference in creating-and not just discovering-a particular understanding of hacking as a culrnral identity as well as an approach
to computer design and programming. Levy, a freelance journalist at the time,
had written a book based on interviews with romputer programmers who had
worked variously at MIT and in the Bay Area and had seized on the colloquiaJcolloquial~orked
ism. hacking as something significant. Hacking had long been in usc to refer to
I$Il\
hobbyist-tinkerers who worked with gadgetry for fun, as contrasted with efforts
developed according to carefully preconceived plans. Levy traces the term to the

89

Missing the Net

MIT's undergr:ldu:lte model railroad dub in the 1950S. By the 1970S the term
had come to be used casually in computer circles co distinguish obsessive and
unplanned work styles from those that were rigorous and carefUlly pbnned. The
general rerrain was already laid out; hackil1g referred ro the same behavior partern as Licklider's ~self-morivaring exhilararion,~ Wei:;:enbaum's addicted compulsive programmer, and Brand's SpacewaTs-playing computer hipsters. Following in
Brand's footsteps, Levy's depiction of hackers was orthodoxly romanric. They are,
he writes, ~:l.d\enturers, visionaries, risk-takers, artisrs ... and rhe ones who most
dearly saw why rhe computC'r was a rruly revolutionary tool.~)O
Levy added to the discourse both derail and a narnrive thar gave hackers
credir for the ongoing explosion in the microcomputer industry. Subtitled Heroes
oj
Computer Revolution, Levy's book does not mention Engelhan. Licklider,
Van Dam. or Xerox PARCo these individuals and institutions were relatively
well-funded, embedded in large institutions, and at leasr on the surface operating
according to explicit, rational plans. Inste;ld Levy provides a narrative in which
hackers are celebrated as both romantic artists and the true causes of the changes
in computing precisdy ~cauU' rhey were romantic artists; they \vere more e;lSily narrarable as such beause of their place at the margins of or outside major
institutions. Insighdully exploring the cultures of 5e\'eral key moments in the
history of computing. Levy We;lves a story in which first at MIT. then later in
the hobbyist community in Palo Alto. and after that in the nascent early 1980S
game-building community. indh-iduals with an obsessive approach (0 computers
advanced the srate of the an. Hardly a technical history. instead Levy artfully
offers portraits of events and individuals, many of them quire poignant.
Ever since Rou.sseau, the revelation of internal passions and Raws has worked
u a mark of romantic authenticity. Levy's Hacktn is such a compelling read-it
rings true-to a large degree because of his focus on the internal emotional life
of hackers. Levy's outline of what he calls the hacker ethic-acce.ss to compUterS
should be unlimited. information should be fTee, mistrusr authority. judge people
by their hacking. computing can be an-were appealing not.so much as political
or philosophical statements; as such they would have to be judged as half-baked
as best. They were appealing because rhey were presented as the values of a commUllity struggling with and acting on their internal passions. their shared fascination with tinkering with computers as an end of its own,
To Levy's credit, however. he notices rhis difference. and at momems shows
the tension between the romamic tendency in computing and the rationali:;:ing. corporation-building. profit-oriented imperatives th;lr were asserting themselves in the industry. Levy's heroes are not heroes beC;luse they struck it rich bur
because of their passion and technical contributions. He spends some time in the
book exploring the tensions between, say, the profit motive ;Ind the ethic of shar-

ing compurer code that was quietly building in the programming community.
Levy called atrention for the first time ro young Bill Gate's squabbles with the
early computer tinkerers who freely shared his first commercial softwa.re efforts
and dubs Richard Stallman "the last of the true hackers"; both of these characrers
would evenrually become crucial in the rise of the open source software movement more than a. decade later. But. in most of the n:l.rratives of the 1980s that
celebrated the new computer culrures, the difference between the rational utiliurian fonn of selfhood congruent with market principles and the rom:l.ntic fonn
elaborated in Levy was as often as not glossed over or arrfully mixed.

Conclusion

/m

90

Missing the Nel

In 1983. the s:IIffie year that de Sola Pool published Thnologit5 oj Fretdom. a curious debate broke OUt among readers of the counrercultural compendium, the
Coevvlutiol1 Quarterly, an offSpring of Brand's \.vJXllt bmJ, CUtllog. In the previ.
ous decade, the QuarttrlJ had in various W2ys sought to act on the counterculrute'S egalitarian, utopian impulses. h had offered an i.ssue up to be guest edited
by the Black Panthers in 1974, for enmple. After 1975 all employees recei\d the
same pay, and every change in subscription fea wu agreed upon by a loosely
democratic process of consulting its teade.I'$....
Yet, in 1983. some readers complained beause. the editors had changed the
past practice and behaved as most commercial publications do and raised rhe fee
without consulting readers. But this was only pan of the changes afoot at the
time; in the summet of 1983, Stewan Brand n(l{ed all the energy around microcomputers and set OUt to create a l..vhole Etlrtn SoJt~"'rt CAtalog and a Softll'are
Rtview. Perhaps beause writers knowledgeable about computers were consrancly
tempted by the more lucrative positions with the growing crop of commercial
computer magazines, editors of these new projectS Wete offered higher, more
competiri\'e Sal;lries. \\'hen, in 1984, the Wholt Earth Software Review and CoevoIll/iOlI Qllarterly were combined, and the joint publication was named Whole
Earth Rtvitw. the economic egalitarian strucrute of CQ came to an end. Capitalist practice had been brought back into one of the few relatively visible places in
the United States it h:l.d been resisted." Simply pointing to the individuals who
carried countercultural ideas from the 1960s into the 1980s computer culture cannot explain this shifT.
Even though it happened quietly, this was quite a change. One of the most
famous moments in the history of the Whole Eartl, Cllfillog was when, faced wirh
the brge profits brought in by rhe surprising succeSS'of the effort, Stewart Brand
decided to give the money away to the "community" :l.nd held an all-night, come.
one-corne-all meeting to decide what to do with the money." Brand was never
91

Missing the Ner

havc imagined him to be; to me

the extent
as anticapitalist as some might have
exrent that it
of
the
lVIJoit
EllrtlJ
Catalog
lloriced
such
things,
the
gener:ll
ethos
genenl
Whck Earth CAlalog was that the
noticed
the root
toOt of all evil. BUt
pront moti\'e
motive was tedious and conformist, not that it was me
Bur
profit
dear that the utopian compass of Brand's publishing realm had
by 1984 it was clear
shifted, and the inequalities thar
longer an
that emuge
emerge from market rel:uions
relations were no longer:ln
:lnd
Kevin
Kelly
would
go on to
anathema. By 1990, CQ contributors Art Kleiner
Kleinet and
help create
cre:lte Wirta
WircJ maga'line.
magazine.
111is
by, say, simply exposing Brand
This shift could nor
not have been accomplished by;
and his cohort to neoclassical theories of marginal utility. For such a change in
the entire terrain
tetrain of political argument to
to truly sink in, something has to hap_
me
microcOlnputer, newly
pen in the gur,
gUt, on the level of habits of the heart. The mictocomputet,
011 the one hand, because
arrived on the scene, played no small role in that shift. On
corpor:lte
aUtomared corporate
U.S. computer manuf':tcturets
manuf.tcrurers were caught up in visions of automated
typing pools and the like, they failed to foresee rhe
the demand for general purpose
tum resulted
tesulted in a very
desktop
Vtry
deskrop computers and thereby left the field open. This in rum
numetOUS, small, upstart
upStart companies appearing seemingly out of
drama of numerous,
public dn.ma
:lnd competing fiercely on features and price. VVhilc
While
nowhere in a:I high-tech field and
the entrepreneurial narrative
nuntive of twO
twO guys in a g:lrage
garage was an oversimplifieatiol',
oversimplification, in
was a closer fit than most
mOSt business behavior in an
the case of microcomputers, it W<!.S
economy dominated by oligopolistic corporations.
On the other hand, consumers were treated
treOlted to
to a particular set of experiences
with microcomputers, experiences that themselves
themsel\'es stood out from the norm of
consumer purchasing. 11,e
The experience was one of achievable mastery of somerhing
aile had until recently
thing one
recendy imagined as impenetrably complex; a generation
:l.n image of computers as zoo,'s
2001'S HAL suddenly found themselves
raised on an
assembling small computen
computers alone in their homes and quickly being drawn into
inro
ourset rhe.~e
these
the compulsive character of tinkering with them. Because at the ouner
were
largely stand-alone machines, rhey
they amplified the sense of
wete conceived
conceh'ed as Iargdy
computing as something contained
within
singular
object-commodities (rather
conrained
singulOlr objecr-commod.ities
wirh a system). Microcomputers lent themsd\'es
thcmselves
than as something associated with
to a vision of oneself and others as abstract individuals competing in a markermarker:place.
As Le"}"s
Levy's Hatker5
Hllck..r5 knows, the fit between Reagan era
cra entrepteneurialism
en.trepreneurialism lind
and
imperfect in several ways. But
Btl( idrologiideologlthe expetience
experience of the microcomputer was imperfecr
rarely if ever seamless.
romantical shifts are tarely
.seamless. In retrospect, the conAuence
confluence of the romanricized stand-alone microcomputer on the popular level with the law and economics and information
informarion sooety
society movements on the elite level led to a perfect storm
of ideological effectiveness.
explosive ne\\'
effectiveness, playing a role in launching a period
petiod of elCplosive
new
growth in capitalist social relations, both across the globe and in the ,;revices
crevices of
everyday life and practice in the United Srates.
States.
92

Missing cht:
the Net
Miuing

Networks and the Social Imagination

One C:lJl
r:.ke issue
issue whether
the technical
ean rake
whelher the
teehnical designs th:tt
that emerge out ofIhat
of that fcoll:tb[eollabor:.rive' procell
foIr more important fhal
orative]
process are the beSt
best possible,
po&sible, but it
ir is far
lbt they
lhey actuaetually come
come into
into existence
by aa ptoceS$
proces' that
fhar is
is open-architecturally
open-architecturally open,
exiRence by
open. polirinlly
policirally
ally
open, that
th:tt new
people rome
come in regu[:trly,
re'ults are
open.
~ people
regularly. lh:tt
that Ihe
the results
an distributed
distnbutrd. free of
charge
to everybodr.
everybody. '!be
enormoU5 power of those
fhO$e very simple
chMge :ttOund
around the world to
The enonnous
concepts is very hard
h~rd to convq
convey ro
not experienced them.'
con<:epu
[0 people who have
hal'\' noc
-Steve Crocker

person using a computer

compUter be said to be acting alone,
alone.
hrst glance, staring at a monochrome
and when are they acting with others~
others? At
Ar first
to connect
connecr to and interact
interacr over a network
screen and typing arcane commands to
Both involve
is hardly different from configuring a spreadsheet on an Apple II. Borh
intetaction wim
witl, a machine and lend themselves to an obsessive absorpesoteric interaction
can have me
dIe effect
elfecr of removing one's attention
arrention from the physically
physic.ally
tion; both
borh C2Il
proximate person in the next room. But, in the United States in the 1980s, for
e:trly developstages of the eady
those narrow cirdes
circles of individuals involved in various Stages
interner, there were key differences between their experience and the
rhe
ment of the internet,
experience of the
rhe millions who were encountering microcomputers, and those
differences
d.i~erences lent themselves to
ro different possibilities for articulation
articulaTion with larger
visions.
VISions. If using a stand-alone
stand-a.lone microcomputer in the early d<lYs
days lent itself to
to a
network. could have
feeling of Lockean autonomy from others, using a computer network
reverse effect; working on a computet
computer terminal connected to
something of the reverst
a nerwork.
netwotk, particularly over rime, foregrounds the social connections
connectioru; embedded
in the technology. Anyone who has had to
to inrervene
intervene in a discussion Jist
list or in
ill a
chat rOOm
tedmical advice to a
room to keep things
rhings going smoothly-by, say, giving technical
sake of group
newbie or by encouraging a flamer
Ramer to moderate their tone for the .sake
rhis effect. AifenfiOll
AilCltlioll becomtJ
towllrds
harmony_has had a small
sm.all taste of this
bttomt5 dirWtd
dirttfed lou'ard5
lilt
tilt Jodlll
wcial medtallirJ
merhaniu of ill/trarlioll
interattioll witl,ill
within a<l JyJltm.
5J5tem.
bur,look. One wouldn't have known it at the time by reading Time or Fortune, but,
looking
back, it is now clear
Ing bOlck,
cleOlr that the 1980s was a time of great advancements in compUter networking. While the U.S. mainstream was romancing the entrepreneur~uter
ial
tale of the stand-alone microcompUter
limelight,
Ial ~ale
microcomputer in the 1980s, outside of the linle!ight,
major developments were taking place with
wirh rather different
connotam<ljQr
diH'erent political connora.W
J-I ENe
A N A
WHEN
CAN

93
9'

rions. By 1980, p~cket

packet switching was established as:l.
as a practical
pracrical means of commu_
X.:15 networks that
nication both on the experimental internet and the working X.1;
connected banks and research labs. Ethernet (as well as competing token ring and
ARCNET) local :\rea
area networking technology became commercially viable, and
protocols for today's
roday's interner,
internet, TCP/IP,
TCP/II~ were pur
put into place,
the basic underlying prorocols
Compusuvc
tested, and heavily developed. Commercial computer networks like Compuserve
and Prodigy were 1000unched,
launched, small computer
CQlIlpurer bulletin board systems st:lrted
started co
:l.nd
to
spread, and many university computer scientists began to COllllnunic:!.rc
spreOlld,
communicOllte over the
Uscnct system. France led the world into consumer use of computer
low-cost Uunet
Minitd system, launched by the French post
POSt office,
networks with its nationwide Minitel
information on terminals in the homes of
that allowed emailing and looking up inronnation
of computer engineers, net
netsubst:tnti:tl segment of the community ofcomputer
citizens. For a subStOllntiOllI
cemer of thdr
their attention in the 1980S_
1980s.
working was near the center
not enru
enter thl!:
the broader public eye
Because these events did nor
Beause
I!:ye in the U.S. until a
happened in thl!:
the 1980s occurred
decade larl!:r,
latet, however,
howevet, OIla broad discussion
discussiol\ of what luppe:ned
deade
aher the
faCt. And, as people have looked back to 6gurl!:
figure out where this
thl!: fact.
only after
amazing thing called the interner
imerner came from, the effort
dfort became an
:tn opportunity
:unazing
:l.nd not a little political mythmaking,
mythmaking.. both intentional
intentionOllI
for much hagiography and
nor. For example, in response to the common (if :l.bsurd)
absurd) mid-1990S habit
and not.
attributing the rise
free market,'
marker.' Michael OIInd
and Ronda
of Oltrriburing
rise: of the internet to the fTu
Hauben published a uries
series of OIIrtides
articles and a book that
th:lt the
HOIIuben
thOlt made a strong case that
antill1arket, communitarian
communirarian principles consistent
rise of the internet was due to antimarket,
Howud Rheingold and omen;
others in Srewart
StewOlln Brand's cin:le
circle
with the 1960S New Left. Howard
OntO the New Communalism.
Commullalism. And numerous pot
pOtgt:lhed computer
gr.tfted
compurer networking OntO
red histories OIInd
:md omelines
timelines of me
the internet OIIppe:ared
appeared in print
prim and on the internet
tl!:d
their sdection
selecrion of detliliis.
details.
itself, often reAecring various political
polirical inclinations in thdr
Since these early efforts,
hiseffortS, the discussion has mawred,
matured, :llld
and OIla more serious his
rhe internet and
:tnd computer communication
communic:l.tion
toricalliterarure on the I!:volurion
evolution of the
toricalliter.l.lure
appeared. Works
Wotks by Janet
Jallet Abbate, Paul Ceruzzi, and James Gillies and Rob
Robhas appeOllred.
h:.tve
provided
much
finer
detail
and
careful
:tnalysis.'
BIIt
one
of
the
ert
Cailli:.tu
I!:rt CailliOllu have
nner
analysis.' But
not to rush to
literature is that',
that>, while it is careful nOt
striking things about this newer Iiten.ture
ontO the hiSTOrical
historic:.tl detOlil,
detail, political questions keep
impose political assumptions onto
resurf.acing.
tbe internet has
h:.ts been so large, and its origins so disdis
resurf:l.cing. -Il,e
The impact of the
tinct,
implic:uions of this course of
abour the implications
tiner, that
th:lt one cannot help but wonder :about
events for undersranding
understanding politics and social relations.
eventS
Here I will focus on a few, illustrative episodes in the evolution of networking
in the
tl,e 1980s,
whar makes them politically
politiCllly unusual
unusu:al and therefore
1980S, with an eye on what
scver:al important points. First, the
Ptevious work has demonstrated several
intriguing. Previous
was not
nor created by two
!WO guys in a garage, by small entreinterner most ccrtainly
certainly W:l.S
entre'
intcrnct
It was developed inside Hughes's
preneurs operating in a:t classic free market. It
94

Networlu
Networks :tnd
and the Sociallrnaginatioll
Social Imagination

ptilitary-industrial-university complex-at a moment when that complex was

tylilitary-industrial-universiry
ch:tnges. This fact alone serves an important rejoinder to
undergoing significant changes.
marker
fundamenulisrs
imporrant that the larger
tnatket fundamentalisTS and libertarians. But it is also important
established by Vannevar
Ptiv:tte corpoVannev:l.r Bush. Private
development framework was that eStOlblished
e:l.tly on and were for rhe
the most pan
p:trt .uways
alw:tys
rations were involved in the internet carlyon
imagined to be cemral
take:ts
central to whatever form the technology would take
0lS it matured;
jsnagined
docs
early internet development was funded by tax revenues does
the simple faet
fact that euly
Lefl position with tegard
regard to corporntions.
corporations.
not by itself confirm, say, a New Left
DOl
early internet devdopment
development h-om
from .uteralterSecond, part
P:lrt of what distinguishes the arly
Second.
nlltive networking efforts
e/fons in the 1980S
1980s is an unusual culrure
culture of infonnal,
informal. open,
aarive
coopet:ltion-that \'ery
very distinct
diStinct set of pn.ctices
practices that are incompll!:tely
incompletely
horizont:tl
borizonn.1 coope:ration-mat
code,H
tummarized today under phrases such as "rough consensus and running code;
summarized
and "end-to-end design.-
design:-4 The
1he role of these
practices in the history of the inrernet
internet
and-end-to-end
mese pr.tctices
has become something of a political football; blessed by their genealogical relabas
(Q one of the major rechnological
technological success Stories of the twentieth century,
tion to
Don
they are
:Ire claimed as supporting evidence by dusic
classic corpon.te
corporate liberals, libertarIbq
:tnarchists .uike.
alike. It is important to get beyond the
ians, democratic socialists, and anarchists
has made the important
timplistic \'ersions
versions of these appropriations. Fred Turner hOlls
simplistic
th:lt friendly horizonral
horizontal coUaboration
collaboration among engineers is hardly by itself OIla
point that
conStrued, and it is in fact
faCt historica.1ly
historically
guarantor of political democracy broadly construed,
parantor
a:msisrent
StrUCtures, like the cold
consistent with autocratic
a.utocratic and highly oppressive political struCtures,
effons of the 1950S. And the history is dar
dear that, to the extent there is a poli'
poliwar effOrtS
tics to internet development, it is not
nor something that can be ra.d
read off
offof
the politi.
politiofthe
particular engineers; right- and left-wingers, hawks and doVl!:S,
doves, all
cal concerns of parricuw
contributions, often in coopen.tion
cooperation with one anothl!:r.
another.
made important conrributions,
reAects
on
two
instances
of
a
new
and
unusual
set of ptlilctices
practices
This
chapter
'Ibis chaptu rl!:Rects
OIl
a.nd
1980, ways of social OIInd
and technological
[ecllllological organization that in
that emerged around t980,
dw
retrospect sttm
seem relatively politically
politic:llly satisfying
s:ltisfying and praerically
practically effective.
eflcctive. First, it
rurospe:ct
development of new chip design methods in the late 1970S, which led
looks at the devdopment
to VLSI (Very Large
L:lrge Scale
rhe 1980s.
1980S. Whill!:
While not
nOt
ScalI!: Integr:uion)
Integration) microprocessors in the
ch:lin of devdopmenrs
developments that led to the internl!:t,
internet, thl!:
the VLSI chip
always listed in the chain
the
Sl!:t thl!:
design process was key to maintaining the momentum of Moore's Law and set
ever-improving microprocessors and graphics chips
conditions for the paradl!:
p:lrade of I!:ver.improving
on top of which thc
the internet was built. For my purposes, it nicely illustrates the
rhe sheer technical value of attelltion
attention to
to
cnginct:ring of che
discovery inside computer engineering
SOCial process and to
to open, networked, horizontal
relarions. Second, the chapter
aocial
horizoncal relations.
discusses the much more cle:lrly
dearly political economic moment during which ti,e
the
ARPANET efforts
effortS were split off from the military and quietly tr:lnsferred
transferred to
to
is. nor
nOt just the
NSF funding. What is distinct about this remarkable moment is,
to urefully
carefully
spirit of openness, but the use of that kind of open coll:tboration
colb.boration to
.pirit
95

:tnd the Sod:l.!

Soci:tllmaginarion
Networks and
lm:l.ginarion

~hepherd a developing network as ir passed outside of the cocoon of DARPA

funding into a wider, more fraughr world of funding by an ever-growing variery
of users and sponsors, Theoretically, packer-switched global computer networking could have come to us in any variety of insrirurional packages, but this 1980s
experience of quietly guiding the growing internet into a space between the dif_
ferently charged force fields of military, corporate, university, and NSF funding
left a sramp on the institution of the interner that would have far-reaching conse_
quences.
"We Don't Have to Form Some Instirnte";
The Case of Lynn Conway and VLSI Chip Design
There was never a single justification for seeking to communicate between com
pucel'S. In the 1960s and 1970S, funding sources were the military and large corporations, so command-and-conrrol uses were favored, such as building a communications network thar could survive a nuclear attack, conrrolling military
operations at a distance, or disrributed use of centralized supercomputerS for
scientific research, 1hese arc rhe ideas that dominated grant proposals, commitree restimony, political speeches, and mainstream newspaper coverage, Bur other
ideas percolated in the background, such as Licklider's, Engelbart's, Van DanIS,
and Nelson's grand dreams of inrerconnected communication machines.
But the eventual triumph of the ideas of Engelbart was as much a product of
surprising experiences with early forms of computer communication as it was a
matter of persuasion by a few intellectuals. The most often-mentioned surprise
discovery of the ARPANET was the popularity of email and discussion lists;
built for command-and-control uses, rhe ARPANET turned out to be a great
way to JUSt chat, and the numbers of emails over rhe network skytocketed.' These
statistics, coupled to the fact that most of the people reading the statistics had
personal experience with email themselves, gave substance to the ideas of tbe
likes of Engelbart and Nelson. By the late 1970s, among computing professionals,
the idea of using computers for communication between people was no longer
absrract; it increasingly had an experiential grounding.
At least as important as the sheer fact of email's popularity was its social rone.
Some of this was simply about the informal styles that became customary on
email. For example, in 1978, Licklider and a colleague noted:
One of the advantages of the message syStem Over letter mail was that, in an
ARPANET message, one could write tersely and rype imperfectly, even to a"
oldet person in a superior position and even to a person one did not know very
well, and the recipient took no offense, The formality and perfection that most
people expect in a ryped lener did nOt become associated with network mes96

Networks and rhe Social Imaginadon

sages, probably because the network was sO much f.lSter, SO much more like the
telephone Indeed, tolerance for informaliry and imperfeCT ryping was ,,'en more
evident when tWO users of the ARPANET linked their consoles together and
typed back and forth in an alphanumeric conversation,'
It is probably not inherent to computer communication that it encourages informality, It may be simply that, when email started to spread in the late 19705, tile
secretaries who were regularly raking hand-scrawled nores on yellow pads and
rorning them into formal letters were nor the ones typing emails, Networked
computers were still too rare, expensive, and hard to use to integrate them into
rhe established rituals of the office. The social insritutions and expectations that
ordinarily lend themselves to formality-secretaries, lertethead, the legal expectations that go with a signed letter-were not operational.
But the informality of online communicarion was also associated with something more subrle thar starred to become part of the experience of those using
networked computers: the occasional efficiencies gained when working online
on tet:hnical projects as a group. People often mention the surprising popularity
of nontechnical discussion lists in the early days, like Usener's alr.clliture.llsenet
and alt~ournalism.criricism.' Bur the fact is, well into the 1980s, computer communication was predominantly communication about computers; the majority of
email and discussion list use was about technical issues.
This might seem like a criticism, bur significantly, for the people who designed
and built computers, this could be a surprisingly effective way ro get things done.
An early and inl1uential version of this discovery occurred when Xerox PARC
scientist Lynn Conway and Caltech professor Carver Mead collaborated on the
development of VLSI design methods for microchips in the 1970s. Carver Mead,
credired by Gotdon Moore with coining the term Moore's Law, was the first
to use the methods of physics to predier the theoretical limits of the capacities
of microchips. By the early 1970S, these predictions made it clear to Mead and
others that individual microchips, especially microprocessors, were destined to
become bewilderingly complex. Intel's first microprocessor, the 4004, conr:lined
1300 transistors on a single chip; this was a lor for the time, bur ir was still something that could be designed by a relatively small team in a matter of months.
But, recognizing that this was just the beginning of a trend, Mead fOtesaw that,
as the number of transistots per chip increased logarithmically, this would cteate
new design challenges. How would the complexity of design be handled as the
capacity of single chips reached hundteds of thousands, or millions, of transistOrs~

Lynn Conway, an expert in computer architecture who had made some pioneering innovations at IBM ill the 1960s, teamed up with Mead to tadde this
ptOblem; as she put it, he was approaching the problem from the level of silicon
97

Networks and dlC Sociallmaginarion

upwards, and she was approaching it from the level of software downwards. The
significant thing aoout their approach was that rhey did not set oue TO design a
particular chip or even a particular type of design; they set out to design II me$}wd
ofdnign, a way [0 make accessible and better org;mize the process o(YLSI rnic'tochip design. The problem, as Conway described it in a 1981 presentation, way.:~a[
when new design methods arc introduced in any reclmology. especially in~cw
technology . . a 1m of exploratory usage is naessal)' ro debug and evaluate new

design methods. The more explorers that are invohed in this process, and the better they are able to communicate, the faster the process runs to any given deg...,e of

completion.... How can j'Oll cause the eulrur..! integr:uion of the new methods,
so thar the average designer feels comfortable using the methods, considers sueh
usage to be part of theit normal duries, and works hard to correctly use the methods? Such cultural integration requitu a major shift in technical viewpoints by
many, many individual de.igncrs.... TIle more designers involved in using the new
methods. and me berrer they are abk!O communicate with each other, the 13ster

the process of culrural integration runs.... New design merhods normally evolve
via rarher ad hoc, undirected processes ofculrural diffusion through dispersed,
loosely connecred group. of practitioners, over rdatively long periods of rime....
Bits and pieces ofdesign 10"'" design examples, design artifacTS, and new, of suc'
ces.fUl market applications, move through the interactions of individual designers,
and through the trade and professional journals, conference. and mass media.
I believe we Can discover powerful alrernarives to that long. ad hoc. undirecred
process.'
What's distinct here is the extem to which Conway, while working on what she
caUed "designing design methods,'" is explicitly talking abour >ocial, as opposed
ro purely technical, proce.ses. It's worth emphasizing that Conway is no compuret imptesario or pundit like George Gilder or John Perry Barlow, who basically make use of the technological for polirical or social purposes; she is a true
engineer working at the cuning edge of her field, giving a talk at Caltech ro other
engineers. Yet her primary concerns are numbers of individuals, their communication skills, and their culture. She describes her work from this period as a "new
collaborative design technology."
Mead and Conway's widely used textbook on VLSI design was not just
a summary of what people were already doing; it was carefully thought our to
enable more people to participate in the process of microchip design, and was
written more with an eye to where mi<:rochip design was going than to where it
was at the time. Once they had developed some basic ideas about how to simplify rhe process of design, as Conway pur ir, "Now, what could we do with this
knowledge? Write papers: Just design chipsf I was vety aware of the difficulty of
bringing forth a new system of bowledge byJUSt publishing bits and pieces of ir in
98

Networks and the Sociallmaginarion

among traditional work. I suggested the idea of writing a book, actually of evolving II book, in order to gencrare and integrate the methods:' So the texrbook was
not just released into the world on irs own; it was developed in the context of a
series of courses, beginning with one Conway taught at MIT and later extended
to several other academic centers of high-tech development, where each course
served simultaneously as a way to spread the new ideas and as a way to improve
them through tight interaction and quick feedback between everyone involved.
"Perhaps the most important capital resource rhat we drew upon," Conway
stateS, "was the computer-communications network, including the communications faciLities made avaiLable by the ARPANET, and the computing facilities
connected to the ARPANET at PARe and at various universities." The initial
drafts of the textbook used in the firSt courses, she says, "made use of the Alto
personal computers, the network, and the electronic printing systems at PARe"
so that they could see the inside of a classtoom and be modified based on experience before needing to go through a publisher. Student designs were transmitted
over me ARPANET from MIT on the eaSt coast to PARC on the west coast for
relaying to a fabrication plant. As the courses expanded to other major universities, the network was used to wordinate the multiple efforts so that al1 students'
projecrs could be transmitted to PARC for quick and cost-efficient fabrication.
"The networks:' Conway observes,
enable rapid diffusion of knowledge through a large community ~cause of their
high branching rarios, shon: rimeconstantS, and flexibility of social structuring;
any particip:mt can broadcast a message to a large number of orher people very
quickly.... If .omeone running a course, or doing a design. or creating a design
environment has a problem. if they find a bug in the text or the design method,
they Can broadcast a message to the folks who are leading rhar particular aspecr
of the adventure and sa}~ "Hey! I've fuund a problem: The leaders can then go off
and think,Well. my God! How aIT we going to handle rhis{ \\'hen they've come
up with some solmion, they Can broadcast it through the network to rhe relevant
people. TIlt)' don'r have to run evetyThing through to completion, and then start
all over again, in order to handle contingencies. This is a subtle but r...,mendously
important fUncrion performed by the nerwork.... Such networks enable large,
geographically dispersed gtOUps of people to function as a righdy.knit research
and development community.... The network provides the opportunity for rapid
accumulation ofsharable knowledge.
Participants in these courses rook these experiences and went on to fund stan:ups (like Jim Clark, who used his course design ro create Silicon Graphics [SGI)
and then from there went on to found Netscape) and to build the chips that
fueled the continued growth of me mmputcr industry throughout the [980S into

the 1990S.
99

Networks and the Social Imaginarion

hard to con""y to people who have nOl experienced them.

To illustrate just how deeply (if not widely) the habit of thinking about computer networks as a means to establish horizontal communication for the purposes of technological development had become, it is useful to consider the case
of Lynn Conway's [nove [0 DARPA in late 1982. Because of [he success of her
work at Xerox PARC, Conway was recruited to join DARPA to help oversee
the newly fonned Strategic Computing Initiative (SCI). TIle project had very
conventional Reagan era cold war goals coupled ro a Vannellar Bush-style theory
of technological innOllation; DARPA's official project summary said it would
develop technologies, ~for such military purposes as aircraft carrier command
and control, phoro interpretation, and Straregic urget pl:lllning.~" while much of
rhe enthusiasm for funding the projeCt in Congress was based on the rheory that
it was the U.S. answer to Japm's Fifth Generation Computing Initi:lri\~, which
threatened the United Statd'S technological and, by extension, economic superiority.
By taking this job, Conway was demonstrating mat she was no antiwar Iiber.ll,
(In response to critics, she has said;if you ha.\e ro fight, md sometimes toou must
in order to deal with bad people, history tells us that it re:llly helps [0 have (he
beSt weapons all;lilable.~)" But Conway carried a sense of computers a.s tools for
hori'Zontal communication thu she had absorbed at PARe right into DARPAat one of the hottest moments of rhe cold war, At the rime, she described her goal
as fostering collaborative technical development oller computer networks, telling
a reporter,
\Ve don't halle to form some institute. \l./hetelltl" people aTe they can partid-

g"

1,

101

p.te.... We'lI need fO have some workshops and some establishing of intct&ces
.mong these groups.... And [ben, we'll cook up some network ~C[illiry ..
DARPA is to the Dep~rfmenr of Defense ~s the Palo Alto Research Center is
Nerworks and [he Social Imagination

Networks and the Soci:a! Imagin:acion

in internet govern:lllce, said in ~oo6,

One QJI take i"ue whether rhe techniul designs dur nnerge out of mat pnxas
an the bat possible. but it is f.ar mon important dut they :acrualIy come into
existence by a procr:$5 [hal is open_archilo:tUrally open. politically open. th.ar
new people come in regu.1.trl), rh>.[ the rewlt. are distributed free ofcharge .around
the world to e\'Uybody. The enormous POWn" of [hose lIery simple conCepts i. \ItT}'

100

ings attended largely by graduate students, an organization called the Network

Working Group was formed (predecessor to today's IETF, which continues to
playa key role in the ellOlution of internet technical standards). This community
developed the habit of what has been called ~rough consensus and running code,~
design efforts drillen by a loose consensus among expert insiders th:lt is then
closely ried to widely shared, practical implement:ations. Stelle Crocker, who as a
gradu:lte student wrote the first RFC and who:lS of this writing remains inllOlved

Orher communities of compurer professionals were having similar experiences. The pioneers of rhe Unix operaring system, which would eventually come
co be rhe most common operating system on machines that ran the internet, also
discovered rhat there were te(hnial strengths in systems that were designed to
lend themselves to communication and collabor.trion. One of Unix's designers,
Dennis Ritchie, f2mously wrote of the motivation for crearing Unix: "\VItat we
wanted to preser\~ was not just a good environment in which co do programming. but a system around which a fellowship could form. We knew from experience thar me essence of communal compuring. as supplied by remote-access,
rime-shared machines. is not JUSt co rype prognms into :l terminal inste;ld of a
keypunch. bur co encourage close communiClrion.- Beginning at Bell Labs in
the early 1970S. Ken Thompson, Ritchie, md others developed :l series of pracrices that went beyond jusr p:lfticular :llgorithms, software code. or techniques.
Their basic vision of how to approach computer de\'e1opmenr was distinct.
Instead of a company or handful of engineers developing a full-fledged system
and then offering it for sale co users-the norm for IBM and other companies
at the time-Unix provided what came to be known as a programming environment, where each function was rendered as a separable bit of software that could
run on a variety of hardware and was flexible and easily linked co other programs through "pipes:' (The famous example here is Unix's search "mction. grep;
instead of building sean:h functions into specific programs like word processors
and email applications, grep can search within files from the command line, can
be easily connected to other functions. and is thus avai!:lble for other programs to
use; it was an C3rly inst:lnce of whar became known :lS:l scftwan: tool as opposed
to a compleu: program.) Usenet, rhe legendary early bulletin bo:ml sysrem that
was the first introduction to computer bullerin board communication for many
outside those few that were connecred ro the ARPANET, was created in 1979 for
Unix users at universiries to more easily collaborate on Unix-related projects.
Not the least in these efforts was the e\oolurion of the culture of development md governance structures around the ARPANET. The ARPANET ....'25
inrended from the outset to work across different computer platforms within
different instirurions, and the procedures for developing the prorocols for conllecring disparate sysrems was left largely to the instirurions rhemselves; no single
indillidual or institution was assigned the usk of telling everyone else how to
interconnect. As a result, a culture and shared awareness developed in the first
decades of the imernet's life that took into account the need for. and value of, an
open, collaborative, nonhierarchical dedsion-maing process. A symptom of this
was the crearion of the tradition of gently named RFCs (Request for Commenrs)
as the central mechanism tor distributing information about the rules and protocols for networking computers over the ARPANET, Out of a few initial meet-

II

There's ~ kind of $pirit

spirit th~t ~ppro~ches
~ppro:.lChes p~uion
~,ion th~t ~riK5
~riKll when
to Xel'Olf....
XeTOK.... Thert's
res.c~r(he" are
fOl'ging ahe~d
~hnd in new tcnitory....
terrirory.... I'm going TO
ro Try
try real
reJ.I hud
reK~rchers
~re forging
h~rd to
Olake some
IOniC interesting
irllcrcsring things h'lppcn
h~ppcn with [DARPA:sJ
(DARPASJ money.... ItIT greatly
grudy
nukt
oversimplifies
that we're OUt
our to
ro produce a nuchine.".
mJ.chine.... Anyone
Any Olle machine
<>Vn'$implifies to uy th~t
nuchine is
'pace. ... You'll
sec aJ. whok
whole a=y
arTay of lechnologics
lechnologies and
only one point in the design sp;ICC.
You'U see
knowledge spin off
fTom the DARPA work. If the work i$
is sufficiently succe..
olffrom
succcssful, it will Nve
have ;U!50tU
all 10m of 'Ipplicarions.,
~pplicarion,....
[Within 10 ye:arsl
ycarsj I[ imagine
iOl~gine th'lt
th~t you
ful.
.. (Within
are going 10
sec 'Ia wave of
or SfllTt-Up
irarr-up companies
compmies ali
as a result of the DARPA-funded
DARPAfund"l
He
to 5
researcll."
rcsarch."
The notiOn
rescarch could and should lead
spin.orrs
norion that defense research
It::ld to commercial spin-offs
W:l.S conventional
corporate liberalism, in the
me vein ofVannevar Bush. What
\VbaT is diswas
convenrional cotponre
cmhusiastic description of computer
compmcr networks
tinct
rinn is Conway's style and her enthusiasric
as a forum for horizontal
;IS
horizonral collabor-nion;
collabonrion; where her predecessors in the military.
militarylean
gestured
to
a
command-andcontrol
industrial complex would have at
ar least gesmred
command-and-control vision
particularly in a military context, she was speaking
of computer development, parricularly
frankly and almost exclusively of the value of opening the research process up to
''cooking up some network activity."
relarively
activity.n
relatively informal forms of interaction, to Ucooking
llie
Strategic
Computing
Initiative
is
known
to
some
as
an
expensive
The
Compuring
eKpensive failure,'l
failure,"
and Conway left DARPA after a few years to teach at the University of Michi:md
that, even in a classic
cla.ssic military-industrial
gan. What is significant here is simply thar,
milit.ary-industrial
gan,
context, a computer sciemist
scientist was speaking a different language about how to
the social rebtions
innovation: "We
make sense of Ihe
relations that undergird technologir::.al
technologicOiI innovalion:
form some inSlimte,
institute....
activit),. , , [to
don't have to fonn
... We'll cook up some network activity...
spirit thOit
that .approaches
approaches passion." This is l:anguage
language that would
encourage]
encounge] a kind of spiril
Engelbart or Licklider in the 19605."
1\)60s.' Even
not have been used even by the likes of Engelban:
rhe milituy
military umbrella, the tone
rone of computer engineering had changed.
deep under me
insriIn sum, the invisible colleges of computer professionals attached to big insti
re~earch universiries
univetsities entered the 1980s
1\)80s a1re.ady
already in the
tutions like Bell Labs and research
rurions
specific social
Orglllliz/llioll of the process
me sptcific
socia' orgmlizatiotl
procc:ss
habit of thinking seriously about the
technologies, heavily inAected
with:1Il
creating con'
of building new technologies.
inflected wim
an interest in crearing
confot crfeetille
collaboration and a sense of how hierarchy and insrimtional
institutional
texts for
effective colbbontion
indillidual~ h:!d
allegiances can
interfere. Many of the key individuals
e:ut imertere.
had specific experiences
eolb.boration and the sh.aring
sharing of technical
technic:!1 informarion
information o\'er
over
of cases where open collaboration
nerworks could crute
computer networks
create efficiencies. Thinking about "designing design
w~s becoming a habit, and easily accessible computer networks were
methods" was
purpo~e. While
\Vbile the rest of the world was dazzled by
being used as a tool for that purpose.
the stand-alone microcomputer and its association with frec
frcc market individualindividual
ism, the communities of computer
compUTer networkers, who still
largely
lived
our
stilllargcly
Ouf of pub
public view inside the narrow worlds of the university-lllilitOiry-industrial
university-militaryindustrial complex.
complex,
th:lt pointed in other directions.
were having experiences that
102

rhe Soci.allmaginarion
Networks :lnd
and the
Sociallmagin'ltiQn

The Internet's Institutional Annus

Amllls MirabiUs:
MimbiUs:
The Split from the Military
Milin:ary in 1983-1984
habits
If Conway exemplified the microstructure
microsftUcrure of the new network-inAected
network-infleCted hOibirs
technologic~l development, the fate of the
rhe
of thinking about the organization of technological
a
more
m~crooriented
version
of
those
ways.
The
internet in the 1980s reRecn
reAecu
m2ero-oriented
praCtical experiences with the subtle effects of the social condirions
conditions of technotechno
pracriC2.1
1980s. Pan:
Part
logical innovation were essential to internet decision making in the 19805.
10giC2.1
of this was simply the discovery of the values of allowing open interconnection.
The more p.articipanrs
participants on a2 network, the more S:.l.risfying
ucisfying the experience of using
both public and private settings with access
acce.ss to
network was. Researchers in bom
the netWork
rhe ARPANET thus
mus regularly
the netn:gul2rly began to allow new parricipants
participants :lccess
access to rhe
the
still viewing
work, often
onen quietly
quiedy so as to avoid repercussions from administraTOrs
administrators srill
networking through a commandandcontrollells."
command-and-conrrollens." Alternative,
Alternative. more bottom-up
nerworking
U~enet began to cre:lte
networks like Usene[
cre2te gateways to the much more privileged and
previously exclusive ARPANET.
The story of the internet's relation to the Strategic
Stntegic Computing Initiative illusre:lsoning was at the time.
rime. SCI was
wa~ new money,
[tates
trOites how unusual this kind of reasoning
and a01 lot
lor of it; over its lifetime a billion dollars was spent. The principal creator
DARPA's IPTO :lnd
of SCI was Robert Kahn, then head of DARPAS
and one of the key fig.
figill the
late 1960S
t\)60s and 1970S. While hopes
ures in the creation of the ARPANET in
me la[e
sciencefiaion-like new military applica.tions
applic:ltions and hcsting
besting the Japanese helped
of science-ficrion-like
luders of the progra.m
program
wrest this funding from Congress, Conway a.nd
and Ihe
the other leaders
SCI, something that
th~t would extend
broader vision in mind with SCI.
had a somewhat broa.der
tradition of seeding bold,
bold. exploratory developments in computthe DARPA tr.ld.irion
that would advance the
rhe entire field,
field. It thus
rhus attncted
attraCted the interest
interesr of
ing in a way mOIl
throughout the world of computing. from artificial
many researchers
resc:a.rchers Ihroughout
an:ificial intelligence
inrelligence
re~earchers to solid state physicists
researchers
physicistS interested in new principles for semiconductor design. This was classic Vannevar Bush-sryled
Bush-styled technological development.
[or
Yet whOll
what is striking ahout the internet in this period was that its leaders rhose
,"OS(
to
funding. In particubr,
parricul:lr, Barry Leiner,
Lciller, :H
time the program manto forgo SCI fUnding.
at the
me rime
Pentagon, specifically
specil1e:J.lly declined an invitation to
ager of the ARPANET for the Penragon.
thar internet developers
de\'elopers would have jumped
participate in SCI. One might think that
parricub.rly given that
at a chance to be involved, parricularly
mat SCI was under the leadership
their own, Rohcrt
Robert Kahn. (And anyone who has been involved
of one of meir
in\lolved in the
pursuit of research funding will note how unusual it is for an ambiacademic pursuil
tious researcher to [urn
rurn down ;IllY
any funding opportllnity.)
oppon:unity.) But Leiner has said that
attention associin the early 1980S
[980S he was more concerned with :lvoiding
avoiding public 2ttemion
rhe high-profile SCI than with resources. Funding was less of a probated with the
particul;arly since the desire to interconnect
lem for the ARPANET at the time, particula.rly
103

Networks and the

rhe Sociallmaginarion
Social [magin~rion

computer networks was now becoming srrong among researchers, which meant
that many of them-including those involved in SCI-would bring their own
rable. SCl"s high profile, however, might
mighr also bring with it public
resources to the table.
conttoversy and meddling.. and Leiner's judgment was thar such visibility would
outweigh whatever benefits could be gained by more funds."
The goat, moreover, was not to be simply secretive or exclusive. In 1980, when
ARPANET's Vint Cerf met with a group of computer science professors from
across the country, he offered to connecr the ARPANET to a proposed academic
protocols." This set the trend towards
research network if it adopted TCPlIP protocols.'"
encouraging open access to the internet, which would become the informal policy
throughour the 1980S, leading to dramatic growth fueled, not by lots of governrhe
ment funding. bur by an individual instirution's desire to interconnect. By the
informally encoutaging
mid-198os, ARPANET managers Cerf and Kahn were infotmally
insriTUtions to connect their Local Area Networks-the then-new technology
instiTUtions
worksrarions and microcompUters-to
of LANs that interconnecred groups of workstations
the ARPANET. This was a tactic that proprietary systems would be loathe to
pursue, but it had the effect of initiating the period of logarithmically increasing
internet connection numbers.'"
The policy towards openness then gradually filteted into the small p political world. While avoiding the limelight by staying away from SCI, Leiner also
rhe ARPANET that, at
famously shepherded in a new governance strucmre for the
least formally, "was open to anyone, anywhere in the world, who had the time,
interest, and technical knowledge to participare:'" Time and technical knowledge
were of course major limitations on participation, but those limitations were
defined by practical involvement in the technology instead of position in one or
another instimtional hierarchy. It was a striking bit of openness quietly emerging from near the heart of rhe military-industrial complex at a very conservative
moment in the country's history.
Leiner's decision is a symptom of a subtle sense of the sociology of network
innovation and governance that had been evolving inside the community of those
thar seems to have inAuenced much of
working on building the internet, a sense that
the decision making in internet development and that contributed to the internet's evenmal rriumph. Kahn later said that Leiner's "ability to understand how
to create social and organizational structures that by their design could motivate
individuals to collaborate was at the core of this important contribution" to the
creation of the internet." But Leiner was not alone in this ability. From experiences with things like Unix, Usenet, VLSr, and the ARPANET, Leiner and his
colleagues had developed an awareness of the value of an informal, committed,
open, participatory community environment. That awareness, however, was associated with a cotresponding sense of ways that external pressures and agendas
104

Networks and the Social Imaginarion

could undermine that environment. Corporate profit imperarives, politics, fads,

egos, and bureaucratic rivalries could all interfere, at the exact same time that
these things generally also provided the context that kept the money Rowing.
This sense of potential threats and possibilities was driven by accumulated experiencc and a deep involvement with the technology, not by political inclinations
nor-quire-explicit level. The
or theories, which meant that it worked at an often not-quite-explicit
occasional incorporation of counterculrural style, the rolerance of informality, rhe
dodging of hierarchies were not driven by any consensus about 1960S New Left
politics; as the case of Conway reveals, the politics of the participants could be
quite diverse. lilt the experiences of the 1960s did become part of the background
shared experience of the participants and were drawn upon whenever they might
have seemed useful for achieving the goal of widespread computer networking.
The community had learned that, in some cases, "we don't have to form some
institute:'
TIlat shared sense helps explain one of the more remarkable events in the
rhe separation of the ARPANET into
1980s history of internet development, the
pans, which helped lay the foundation for a subsequent
civilian and military parts,
(98), the military split the
civilian, nonprofit, working internet. In October of 1983,
ARPANET into linked but separate military and civilian networks. Most press
reports explained this as driven by fears of potenrial security breaches by hackers
ir was
breaking into military computers." The nonmilitary, more open network, it
repons of the split
thought, would support militarily signincant research; the nrst reports
said the new, nonmilitary network would be named R&D ncr. (It is significant
that the name R&Dner did not stick; the community seems to have understood
the "new" network as simply a continuation of the ARPANET and its traditions,
while the military branch was seen as something else.) As BBN vice president
Robert D. Bressler put it maner-of-factly, "the research people like open :lccess
because it promotes the sharing of ideas:'"
The notewonhy aspect of this move, however, was not that the milirary
requirements of hierarchical command-and-control eventually came into conAin
with the growing culmre of open collaboration around the ARPANET. That
alone would have been unsurprising. Rather, the important point was rhat the
military-centered leaders allowed the creation of a separate, open network for
research and development; they kept the internally open system of rhe ARPANET alive rather than simply shutting it down or subjecting ir to more severe
access limitations. The technology could have been passed on through publications and transfer of personnel; that was the textbook way to conduct a military-to-civilian technology transfer. But in this case the people imolved (most
centrally Cerf, Leiner's predecessor at DARPA, and his closest colleagues) underStood the social commitments and energy that would come from keeping an
105

Networks .1nd the Social Imaginarion

established, working,
working. :and
:and managed to quietly carve
established.
and growing network going and
out a safe space for that network within the
rhe pressures that typically
rypically come with
th:H this event
evem is typically described in the literature
liter:roture
faCt thar
funding sources,
sources. The f':1ct
were a technical maner
matter suggests that the sociological
and by participants as if it .....ere
ac the time
rime was uken
taken
sense that was driving decision making in the communiry ;l[
1983, a platform for highly dfective
e.ffective inter-nelWorking
inter-networking
granted, By the end of 1983.
for granted.
protected from the divisive pressures of the profit motive
morive
was in place that was prott'ned
university contexts and funding. while also fairly
f:lirly wellby the mix of military and universiry
insulated from the political and technical demands that drove so much of governactivity ar
at rhe
the time. As if by historical accident.
accident, an unusual and what we
ment acriviry
technological space was cteared.
created.
now know to be enormously productive rechnological
The next step in the divotce
divorce from the milirary
military conrext
context was shifting funding
Foundation, which was accomplished with remarkably
to the National Science Foundation.
asmte, under-the-radar
under-rhe-radar style
little friction or rivalry, no doubt
doubc due in part to the aSnlte.
linle
sryle
rhe key participants.
parricipanu. By the second half of the 1980S.
[980S, a backbone for TCP/IP
of the
TCP!IP
inrerconnecting was being constructed called the NSFNET. The internet could
interconnening
treared as a more generalized research project. To the rest of the
from then on be treated
and engineers JUSt doing wbat
what they do. That
llla{
world, this all looked like scientists :md
w:.ts something
somcthing more than that, that in fan
fact an interesring
politic:.tl expcrirnem
it was
interesting political
experimell1
W:.lS underway,
underw:.ty, would only begin to become apparent
app:arent ;It
ar the dose
close of this
rhis period,
was
around 1990.

The Information Superhighway: AI Gore,Jr., and the NREN

1990 approached.
approached, strict marker-based
market-based economic policy seemed to be on the
As 1990
wane, domestically at least. The stock market crashed in 1987-the first such
cr:ash in the United SUtes
St:.ttes since 19z9-and
Y.111ey was threatened
rhreatened by the
rhe
1919-and Silicon Valley
crash
Japanese.
particularly
in
the
uea
of
memory
chip
manufaCTure.
The
wide-opell,
Jap:mtK.
area
manufactUre.
wide-open.
1i[[le less inviting and
:.tnd a linle more threatenthrearenmarket was looking a linle
unfettered free marker
leadership, A3
As a result. for ext(;uoves.
executives. the
rhe
significant groups of business leadership.
ing to signifiCllnt
business press,
pte.ss. and many politicians.
politicians, a principled hostiliry
hoscility to
to go\'Cmment
government seema:!
secmed
busine.ss
a little less appealing. Corporations
Corpor:.ttions were quietly moving away from
fronl the rhetoric
rllctoric
of competition and back rowards asking for government help to
ro organize and
industries, with calls
c:.tlls for regulations that provided ~Ievel
"level playing fieldsficlds~
stabilize industries.
"regulatory backstops.~'l
backstops.~" Some representatives of high-technology industries
and ~regulatory
bcgan calling for government coordinated "technology
"tcchnology policy,"
policy;' which was
waS:la vague
began
tU incentives. research
usc of government to provide things like tax
term for the use
money, and antitrust
antirrust waivers.
w:.tivers."
bcginning to
>6 Technological progress, many were beginning
money.
che market alone. Explicit forms of corporate libbelieve. could not be left up to the
eral cooperation were coming back in fashion.
106

Nerworks :.tna
fhe Social
Soci:.tllm:.lginarion
NetWorks
and the
Imagination

In the
che late 19805,
1980s, m:my
many who
me worlds of computing and high technology in the
bcst thing after
were scanning for the next wave-the next best
aner the microcomputerwere finally looking towards networking.
nelWorking, but most were imagining things hapcollective, centralized way; if mere
thcre was
W:lS going ro
digitalized.
pening in a more coUecd\'e,
to be:.t
be a digitalized,
wu going ro
to be a coopcrativc
w:.ts not going to
networked future
fUturc it was
cooperative project. It was
networka:!
bur would involve some form
fotm of consortia, private!
privacel
come out of garage start-ups but
publiC coordination and partnerships.
p:.trrnerships, lndialtive
Indic:.ttive of the trend was
w:as the formation
public
the formafonnaofGcneral Magic by a consortium
consorcium of computer companies in 1987,
ofGeneral
t987. and me
Project, a lobbying group made up
rion in 1989 of the Computer Systems Policy Project.
tion
AT&T, Digital, Hewleu
Hewlett
of the CEOs of ten computer manuf.1crurers,
manufactUrers, including AT&T.
Packard, and IBM."
Packard.
networking, As the network-now
Similar impulses were driving efforts in nerworking.
called the internet-continued
intcrnet-continued to grow and possible commercial
increasingly allied
1980s, things seemed ro
to be going according
uses began to come in sight in the late 1980s.
1988, computer scientist
scicntist Leonard
Lconard KIeinrock
Kleinrock chaired a group that
formula, In 1988.
to formula.
produced a report,
reporc, ~Toward
"Toward a National Research Network~;
Nctwork"; this report caught
Gorc, Jr.
Jr, In May 1989, the
rhe Federal Research
attcntion of, among others.
others, Al Gore,
the attention
~Program Plan for the National
Inrernet Coordinating Committee.
Committee, released a HProgram
Internet
Netwotk; which proposed.
proposed, afrer
aftcr an initial
inirial government
Research and Education Network;'
to major computing siees,
sites, thar
that
investment in aa high-speed network backbone to
:.tnd operated so that they can
c:.m become
subsequent stages ~will
"will be implemented and
commetcialized;
chen be able to suppl:.tnt
supplant the government in supplycommercialized; industry will then
services.~'f Th.:.l.t
That same
S:llne year, physicist and
:.tnd former IBM vice presnetwork setvices:"
ing mese
these nerwork
idem
Lewis
Branscomb
teamed
up
with
Harvard-trained
Kahin to
Harvard-rrained lawyer Brian lGhin
ident
(II P) at Harvard's John F. Kennedy
found the Informacion
Information Infrastructure Project (lIP)
Government, with funding from a rich mix of foundations, governSchool of Government.
ment agencies, and corporations."
:.tnd acronym-bden-National
2-cronylll-laden-National Research and
The rone
tone was high minded and
title,
Educ:.trion Nerwork quicldy
quickly became NREN-wirh
Education
REN-with an emphasis, as per the title.
educ:.ttion and scientific re.sa.rch.
resench. Ihe
"The NREN; it was proon applications like education
posed,
posed.
should be rhe
fhe proKypt
PTOIOCype of a new ru.tion.:d
nation'll infomution
inform:.ttion infr:lISlrucrure
infraSfTUcrure which could
could.
av.:Ulable ro
fO eycry
hOlllC, office and (:.terory.
\Nhe~yu information is used.
used, from
every home.
F.mory. Wherever
be available
manufaeruring ro
fO high-delinition
yidCQ entertainment.
enfuuinment, and most
mose p;lrtirop<lrricumanuf.acruring
high-definition home vidN>
larly in eduarion.
education, the COUntry
country will
willlxndit
rhii rechnology....
benefit from deploymenr
deployment of this
technology....
brly
The corresponding cue
ease of inrer-computer
inter-computet communication
cOl1llllunication will rhen
fhen provide the
th.
associated wiTh
with rhe
the NREN to
[0 the entite
n~tion, improving rhe
fhe productivb.ndits auociated
benefits
emire narion.
all information-handling
information-h'lndling activities.
~cdykie . To achieve
~chie~ this
end, the deployment
d.ploym.nt of
ity of aU
rhis end.
me Stage
Sf'lge)3 NREN will include a .pilic.
urucrured process
specific. snuctured
proccss resulting in transithe
rion of the
me nerwork
n.[Work from a3government
govcmmenr operation
conunerdal service."
,erne.,."
operarion a commerd31
tion
107
J07

Social lmagin;ttion
Nerworks and the
rhe Sociallmagin;l.tion

legislation began circulating

circulacing in Congress, proposing federal funding for
Drafts of legislarion
that would "link government, industry.
industry, and the education community"
a network chat
and that would "be phased oue when commercial networks can meet the networking needs of American researchers.")'
about the "information
"infotmation superhigh.
Many readers will remember all the talk ahout
1990S. Because of the rich mix of political and economic energy
way" in the early 19905.
the phrase
phtase be.:ame
became attached, it developed a lor of momentum.
mOmentUm. Politito which rhe
to ride on irs
its coattails, and industry factions began to try to capmre
capture
cians sought (0
it; phone companies claimed they could provide
ptovide rhe
the information
infotmacion superhighway,
iT;
provided the government stayed our
out of ir,
it, thank you, and the cable industry
industty
"SOD
countered by politically correcting the name of their newest technology from "500
channel TV" into "cable's information superhighway."l> l'iformation superhighway
became so common it sprouted its own metaphorical universe, involving phrases
like "road kill on the information superhighway."" It's easy to forget, however, that
informacion superhighfor the first few years of this buzzword's flourishing, the information
internet,
way was not necessarily the internet.
iliformatiolJ superl,ighw<Jy
SUptr/,ighw<Jy has been around since at least the early
The phrase iliformatjolJ
[980s and the metaphor of an information highway for at least a decade before
superhig/!Way began to take on a very specific
that." But around 1990, iliformatioll
jliformatjoll superhjg/!Way
circles ofWashingron, DC. At the time, the u.s,
U.S. economy
life inside the political citcles
H, W. Bush was looking increaswas floundering, and the administration ofGeorge H.
ewnomic front. Fortrme
Fortrmt maga:;:;ine sniped that "the President
ingly helpless on the economit
has been disengaged, reactive, and inarticulate" on the economy." The Democrats
vv'1shingron sensed an opportunity; the slogan "it's the economy, stupid" would
in vv'1shington
next election. But the problem for the mainsoon prove devastating to Bush in the neX[
stream Democrats was finding a way to differentiate themselves from the Republirhat had
cans without opening themselves up to the label of tax-and-spend liberals that
so successfully against them in the previous decade by Ronald Reagan,
been used sosuccessfully
In the 1950S, Senator Albert Gore, Sr. had made a name for himself by shepherding in the
rhe interstate highway system, which gave a huge boost to the auto
hetding
industry and the economy in general while profoundly shaping American life and
culture around the automobile. It was one of the most successful and beloved
rime, a triumph
rriumph of corporate
massive U.S, government building projects of all time,
rhis rousing
liberal habits. To this day it stands largely above criticism. No doubt this
success was somewhere in the back of then-Senator Albert Gore,Jr.'s mind when,
starting in 1988, he decided to get involved in building computer networking in
the name of research. Gore, Jr.'s inspiration was to link up with various proponents of advanced computer networking in the engineering community, sponsor
rhar funded the development of a state-of-the-art
State-of-rhe-art compurer
computer network
legislation that
project the "information superhighway."
of networks, and call the projeCt
108

tit" Social Imaginarion

Networks and the

the high-tech industries, battered by

The idea pressed several buttons at once; rhe
gtoping for the next wave. looked favorably
Japanese competition and nervously groping
after all could save them
upon this modest kind ofgovernment investment, which aftet
the COSt of a lot of high-risk R&D and perhaps shield them from overly intense
competition, Because the project was wrapped it) the glamorous aura of high
technology and a positive vision of the furute,
furnte, Democratic politicians, like GOtI.',
Gore,
safety as a model ofUgood"
of "good" government intervention,
Jr. himself, could use this safely
undermining the Republicans' efforts to maintain power by associating Democrats with government bureaucracy and excess. And it appealed to a kind of ecocratS
nomic nationalism; by [99[, a Congressman
Congtessman argued for government involvement
in the creation of a U.S. broadband network by saying"theJapanese will have an
rhe year :1.005 and the USA won't."" Small wonder,
information superhighway by the
Gore,Jr.'s bill
bi\l moved calmly through both houses of Congress and was
then, that Gote,Jt.'s
signed by President Bush in 1991, providing for 2.9 billion dollats
dollars over five years
rime, Al Gore noted, "in many ways, til
this
is bill
for building the NSFNET." At the time,
is very unusual. I have been working on this bill for more than 2 years, and almost
no one has said a discouraging word about it. Instead, I hear enthusiastic support
in many, many different quarters-within the administration, in the telecommuindustry-among researchtesearchnications industry, in universities, in the computer industty-among
teachers, librarians, and many others."" And then in 1992 the election of the
ers, teachers.
first Democratic president in more than a decade seemed to make the political
publicprivate effort. This looked like a classic
climate favorable for this kind of public-private
implementarion of Vannevar Bush's corporate liberal principles for technology
implementation
development,
Com-Priv
The Public/Private Problem and Com~Priv
the Bush philosophy docs
does not always lead ro
to rhe
the linear, orderly process it is
But rhe
9
ro.J Corporate liberalism mixes private and public. and for
sometimes imagined co.J
creates a substantial grey zone where
all its historical effectiveness, that mixing cteates
rules are unclear and asks the polity to take
rake a lot on faith about borh
both the
the tules
good motives and the wisdom of the individuals at the center of this movement
berween the two worlds. And it inevitably raises the question, why should private
between
companies and individuals profit from publicly funded research? Why is this not
government favoritism?
with President Truman and Congress in 1945 over the
Bush himselfsquabbled wirh
exact form that the National Science Foundation was to take. One Congressional
rhe government-funded research
bill, for example, proposed that all patents for the
protecting prh'are
ptl\'ate parents
patents
be retained by the government, whereas Bush favored proteering
maintaining flexibility
Aexibility and autonomy,""
autonomy,'" Bush's approach was
OUt of concern for mainraining
109

Sociallmaginarion
Networks and the Sodallmagination

based on a deep faith in the capacity of scientists, engineers, and other expens to
overlook their own selfish interestS in the name of reason and progress. The COn_
gressional proposal, by contrast, was based on a more transparent, skeptical logic.
The fan remains that the process of transfer and public/private cooperation in
general involves neither a Lockean marker nor a public process dedicated solely ro
the public good. It is a movement between different worlds that operate by differ_
em rules. There is no getting around the fan that research efrons paid for at leasr
in parr by public tax money come to serve the interesTS of those who are making a
private profit.
These tensions were laid bare on one of the more lively and revealing public political economic discussions of the early 1990S, a now-legendary diSCUSsion
list called the Commercializarion and Privatization of the Internet-com-priv
for short. The community of network experts, having spent the 1970S and 1980s
simultaneously developing the tcdmology. discovering its pleasures. and learning
the value of an open approach to its coordination. did what to them was the obvious thing; when faced with the sociopolitical complexities of making the internet
into something broadly available, they established an electronic discussion list,
open to all with the means and interest to sign up-which at the time, was still a
relatively narrow citde.
Com-priv was initiated by Marrin Schoffstall, a long-time participant in the
Internet Engineering Task Force who had recently founded a company called PSI
to offer access to the internet on a commercial basis. Opening his initial POSt to
the list with the address "GentlePeople,~ Schoffstall laid our some questions: is
the open, casual, RFC-based process of decision making adequate for a commercial environment:' What will be rhe relationship between existing. tax-funded,
nonprofit network providers and commercial newcomers (at that rime, PSI and
a company called Alternet):' VJhar happens when commercial activities start taking place on noncommercially funded systems? Schoffstall concludes the post in
a way appropriate to the inviting. informal tone thar had become the norm in
behind-rhe-scenes internet decision making: "Come ler us reason together....
Matty:'"
Some of the discussions thar followed remained rechnical (for example, "HolV
long does rhe UNIX password encryptor take on an 80881 Is it faster or slower
than a PDP-II?")." But one of the striking things aboue the list is how much of it
is devoted to working through policy issues; engineers found themselves thoughtfully debating fundamental principles of political economy. Much of the initial
discussion began around something called the acceprable use policy (AUP)Y
After the transition from a defense department umbrel.la to rhe NSF, the nt:twork had evolved around the central, NSF-sponsored TCP/IP backbone called
NSFNET, which was then connected co a variety of regional neTWorks, mosr of
110

Networks and the Social Imagination

which were nonprofiTS and often leased equipment from for-ptofit companies.
High-tech corporations like BBN and Hewlett Packard, with theit interests in
networking and computer research in general, had various kinds of connections.
PSI and a company called Alternet had begun offering access to the system on a
commercial basis. The NSF portion of the network, however, was governed by
a policy that said me network should be used only for appropriate rt:search and
education purposes.
With regards co the Acceptable Use Policy, Schoffsral asked, "How does
one constrain use of federally subsidized networks ... from doing commetcial
things I" Allen Leinwand, then a network engineer working for Hewlett Packard,
daborated on the problem:
This qUl:snon has plagued us here at HP for some rime. .. Suppose rhat HP
connecrs to AlrcrNet (we have nor ... yet) and we now have the abiliry to pass
co company X and company Y who are
commercial data across AlterNet legally eo
HP business parmers. We are already considering the idea of subsidizing our rrincal business partners with the funds ro connect to AlterNer when we do... ,The
main problem is how do you convey to about 90,000 employees that it is legal to
comp:!.n), X and Y because
conduct commercial bluiness with lP based services ro comp:!.n)'
AltetNet, bue don't do it ro company Z because they are only on
they are on AltetNet.
(the Bay Area public regional)? .. I cannot really envision a network
BARRNet {the
tool which intelligently decides what d:u;a is for commercial use and what is not.
How do we distinguish between HP divisions working wirh the QSF across
NSFNET (which IS legal) and the same division (or machine!) sending data to
company Z".
The subsequent discussion of this issue came up wirh more examples and
explored different possible solutions. A purely technical solution was discussed,
where different uses get coded into the network routing system, bur ir was
generally deemed impractiGlI because of the already quite blurry lines berween
nonprofit and for-profit activities on the network. Something that involved
collective human decision making was needed. TIle problem was, in essence,
political.
Political, but not polemical. The discussion on com-priv made the goal of a
fluid, easy-to-use, open, and reliable network a priority above all else. Schoffstal,
who had recently stepped into the role of an internet capitalist, wrote,
What PSINet has been doing (and from all appearances what ALTERNET
has been doing) is working with indusrry ;md nOt upsetting the srability of the
non.profits and academies.
non-profit mid-levels from providing service to the non'profits
infrastructUre seemed pointless to hun since too much of the US
That non-profit in&astructUre
is incredibly dependant on it. ... Now when the non-profits provide service ro
industry is where we ger into a sticky philosophic~l/leg:J/t:lXation are~s."
III

Networks and the Social Imagination

antiNeither Schoffstal nor others tried to resolve issues by adopting principled 3ntibusiness or antigovernment ideological positions that 3rt
are so common in other
othet
public debates. Parts of the system that worked, in this case run on a nonptofit
nonprofit
basis, were
nOt to
ro be interfered with, even by for-profit entities.
emities. TIle
The approach
wete best
beSt not
was highly pragmatic.
pragm;l.tic.
But there was
wu the matter of what Schoffstal called "philosophical/legal/taxa_
Hphilosophic.al/lcgallt3X;I._
H
rion areas."
matters is one thing,
uound strictly technical m;l.tters
thing. but prag_
tion
areas. Ptagl11arislll
Pragm;l.tism atound
comes ro
to the murky world of political and
strUCtute
;l.nd institutional
institutiona.l structure
matism when it COmes
is quite another. In the latter
F.tCt of political and
lattet there is no getting around
;l.round the faCt
have to be made that will allOClte
allocate :'md
and shape the dissocial choice; decisions will h.ave
tribution of power and resources, and no I~al
legal or technic.alnecessity
technical necessity will dictate
neutral wa}'.
way.
the fonn
fotm of those decisions in a.a completely neurral
Conventional
Con\'ention.al corporate liberal decision making in the United States has generally
moments by couching things in thc
the language of exper_
expererall}' dealt
de.alt with these momems
tise, bound together by reference to the national interest or public good. \Vhen
When
to org:,miu
organi2:e the new technology of radio on .aa corpoHerbert Hoover SCI
set OUt
out to
rate for-profit buis
basis in the 1920S,
19:1.05, he gathered together a.a mir:ture
mi:nure of capuins
captains of
and used.
used the language Of
of~the
conveniencc,
industry and engineers .and
the public interest, conw::nience,
and necessityH
necessit{ to justify the creation
cr=.tion of an administrative agency (predecessor
(predeces.sor to
tod:lY's
use government legal power to alJoc.ate
allocate r:adio
t:l:dio fretoday's FCC) that proceeded to u.se
quencies in.a
in a way
W:lY that F.tvored
favored large, well-llmded,
well-funded, commerci.al
commercial oper:arions.
operations. \.\/hen
When
tax money W.:l.S
was used to create the interstate
ux
interst.ate highway system in the 1950S, the
case, the public lanlegitimating language
l.anguage was that of national defellse.
defense. In e:lch
each Clse,
bureaucratic.
formal and bureaucr:atic.
waS highly fonnal
guage was
TIle tone on com-priv
com-pr;v W:lS
fulling b.ack
back on the
The
was something different. Instead of falling
authority of expertise .and
and institutional hierarchy, there W.:l.S
was an explicit small d
.authority
H
"come,
come, let us reason together.
together." That
TIlat impulse was leavened
democratic impulse: H
[e.avened by
small gestures developed in past pragmatic experiences with sllch
forms of decisuch fonns
sion m3king.
making. Most of these gestures
gestutes were tokens of informality: first n.ame
name modes
of :lddress,
address, occasional colloquialisms :lI1d
and personal details,
det.ails, and
;l.nd the use of selfmockery. Scholfsral,
~position was a bit StrOnstronwhoseposition
Schoffstal, in describing an individual whose
parenthetical :lside,
~(hard to believe
ger thall
th:ln Ir would have taken~
taken" quickly adds a paremhetical
aside, H(hard
for SOllle
some of your
you): All these gestures worked to soften personal sharp edges, generatea
inform;l.l solidarity, and f.l.cilitate
facilitate group process.
erate a tone of inform:ll
United by the common goal of a functioning
funerionillg network, then, Ihe
the community
commulliry
on com-priv was using what had worked for them in technical areas-free
are.1lS-free flowRowing,
hori%onral.
electronic
communication-to
sdf-consciously
deal
with
issues
ing. horizontal,
self-consciously
th:lt were both philosophical :Illd
and political. Tinged by (if not fully committed to)
That
a post-1960S
established, formal institutional habirs
habits :lnd
and by a;I. corPOSt-196os suspicion
suspirion of esr:lblished,
the blurry terrain
ollary truSt in informal directncss,
olbry
directness, they set out
our to negotiate The
lIZ
112

Networks and the Soci:l1

Social Imagination

between government and for-profit rules of operation in a manner that at that

point in history was unique. They took
what worked in a technical contextrook whar
rough consensus and running code-and
to matters that were
cocle-alld set out to apply
;l.pply it TO
becoming increasingly politic.al.
political.
In the broader political world, however,
howevet, other lubits
habits dominaTed.
dominated. In Decem-

ber of 1992,
[99l, President-elect
convened a Conference on the Sute
State of
President-decr Bill Clinton
Clinron convcned
the Economy, having made fixing the economy a centerpiece of his call1paign.
campaign.
The conference
COllfercnce brought
corporate
broughr together a blue-ribbon group of experts and corpor:ate
chieftaills. At this point, the rhetoric
rheroric of the information superhighway was in full
chieftains.
swing, and so it
President-e1eer Al Gore,
swing.
ir was
W.:l.S on the agenda, which gave Vice President-elect
experience in setting the stage
s!line on one of
srage for NREN, a chance to shine
with his a:perience
his favorite topics.
The New
Nrw York Timet
and AT&T chair
Tin~s quoted this exchange
exch:mge between Gore .and
said.
Robert E. Allen. Allen s.aid,
focus on infnstrucrnrc.
nelworb
nerwcxks. commercial
commCTCi:l1 networks
A fouu
infnsnucruu. including informJ.rion
infomution nerworkJ.
which au
J.re interconneaed,
imaconnected. imeroperabie,
imerope",b[e. IUtionai
I1OIcionJ.1 J.nd
to be enCOUf~d g1ohJl,
gloNI. needs
nee<h TO
encouragW.1I hJ.ve
poinu to make
mue maul
abou[ ....
who
whJ.[
[hal respectrupeet,lI
aged.
have $Orne
JQme points
ho should do ....
hat 111
III mat
[hink the
[he government mould
should IKK
nO[ build and/or
open[e $uch
nerworkJ.1I believe
Think
~dlor opuoate
such nctwor!rs..
bdiC\"C
[hJ.[
privJ.[e senor
sector can
c.:ln be and will be incemed
incented [U:!
[.ie] to
[0 build these
dlue 1lCt"'Orks.,
networkJ. to
thaT the private
to
with people J.nd
enhance them and mJ.ke
nul:e it polSible
possible for people
peopk to connect ....ith
and people
with information
infornlJ.don any
~y place
p6ce in the world.
[hink. however.
r1,at the
governmem tole
$enle of
I do think.
ho"'"CY'CI", thaI
t!.t- gow-rnmem
role can be Ilrong
strong in the sense
first. increasing
incte;uing investment in dviJian
ptecompetirivc tcchnologies.
first,
civilian research and prccompetitive
ledmol.ogies.
Secondly, supporring
transfu of that technology
[echnology to
to me
rhe priv:ue
private secror.
supporting the effective tr:lnsfer
secror_
Thirdly esrablishing
J.nd
promulgating
tedUlical
slandards.
which
~re
10
imporestablishing and
rechnica.l sr:lndards, ....hich are so
tall[ to
to be Sure thar
networks and devices plJ.y
together.o
[h~t we
tant
thaT nerworks
play togedler,
together, work Together,
so that
hJ.ve the mOSl
mOSt efficient
eflickm synem
sy~tem in the world.
and
have
wortd. And incentivel
incentil"CS for investment
investment:rnd
reseJ.Tch development,job
developmem.job training.
tr.lining.
resard!
Gore replied:
J.gru ....hen
when itir comes to
conventional nerworks
nC[works and the
[he new nerworlu
ro convention:l1
networks lh~r
lhat
I[ fully agree
Bm with an advanced
adVAnced network
in the process of building. But
your industry is now inlhe
like the
Nuional Research
Resurch and EducAtion
Network, it docs
does sam
seem to me thJ.l
me National
Education Network.
that governmenr ought to
playa
role;n
putring
in
plJ.Ce
thaI
backbone.
Just
a.
no
priv~[e
10
role in putting placc that backbone.Just as private
im'CStor
interstate highway system,
'ys[em. bUf
but once ilIt was
WJ.' built,
investor w:u
wa. willing to build
bllild the interstatc
then ~a lot
[or of Olhn
other roads connected to it. thia
this new very blW.d
broad b~nd
band high capJ.dry
capacity
network mOSt people
peop[r think
~lKIthen
lhink ought to be built by the federal govt'rnnlenl
government and
then
tr.lnsitioned
imo
pnv;ue
induury.
You
didn'r
meJ.n
to
diugree
with
th~t
view
tr.msitioned into privare industry.
did"l mean to di.agree
that
when you said government
govemment should play
playaJ. role did youl
you!
To which Allen responded, "Yes IJ may dis:lgree.~
disagree."" TIle next day,
day; USA Tod/l]
Todl1J
reponed
OIl the exchange under the
reported on
The headline "AT&T's Allen Feuds with Gore.~'
Gore.""
UJ
113

Networks and the Social

Imagination
Sociallmaglnadon

There's a point of view that sees this dispute as mete.!y

technical. Gore and
metely technicOl!'
Allen both :agreed
agreed with the basic Bushi:al'
Bushian approach in which government funds
resureh and then hands things off to private industry for practical devel_
deve.!_
inirial
initial reseOlrch
opment; the question was simply about whether the initial backbone fot
for a proSllOUld be governmenr-creared
posed high bandwidth network should
government-created and then handed
off to
(0 industry
industty or built by the private sector from the beginning. Brian Kahin,
OUt a coordinating role in this effort thtough
who was already staking
s~king out
through rhe
the Ken_
nedy School's Information Infrastructure Project,
Ptoject, turr
l:uer complained th;u
that the
issue.~
As
fllr
as
he
was
cOllcerned,
everyone
Gore-Allen exchange 'confused
the
issue,~
far
concerned,
confused
already assumed that the internet
"opened up to the private sector.~
a1re.;dy
inu:rnet would be ~opened
secror.~ The
alre:ady was being
beillg built from the bonom-up
bortom-up by private entities-com_
network already
nerworlc
panies 2nd
OInd universities-providing local
loul area nerwooo
nerworkli and workst.ations;
workst:ltions: the
he.!p ne.;r
nC:lr the center, with some ~top-down
~rop-down
government was just
jUst providing some help
Private comp:lnies
:lnd MCI
Mel h:ad
already gotten
gouen government
subsidies.~ Priv.ate
cornpmies like IBM .and
had a.lready
contracts
technology. ;and
contr.llctS to build signific2nt
signific.ant pUts
parts of the technology,
md in some cues,
cases, accordg:lve bids below cons,
presulIl:lbly because they viewed this
(0 K:lhin,
Kahin, they gave
COSts, presuma.bly
ing to
For someone like !Cahin,
Kahin, all this W2S
sinlply re.;sonreasonas
an R&D invenmenr."
a.s .an
invesnnent." Fot
w:LS simply
priv:ue effOrts;
efforts; concerns a.bout
about the public internet
able coordination of public :and
md priv.ate
being~rurned ovcrover- to priv;ate
being~turned
priv.ate enlerprise
enterprise were much ado about nothing.
nothing,
But ado there would be. Ambiv.alence
Ambivalence abom
about the appropriate relations
tthtions between
betwetn
government and for-profit enterprises .are
arc woven into the American soul. The
Gore-Allen
exchange would be jusr
first in a sporadic series
squ:absuies of public squabGOte-Allen exchmge
jUst the fint
reve:aling uncertainty
uncert:ainty over the
me boundaries
bouncb.ries between the private
priv.ate and
md public
bles reve.;ling
StatuS of the internet in the years to
squabbles would be
(0 come.
come, Some of these squa.bbles
status
various types;
typcs; .anticotpQt:lte
anticorporate activists would
mounted by political activists of va.rious
goods, and
complain about the theft of public gOQd$,
md economic conservatives
conserv.arives would try
compl.ain
to prove that
thar AI Gore (and public funding) had
han nothing to
to do with
wirh the success
ro
of the internee.
internet. But, even for those with less specific politic~l
political agendas, rhe
the GoreAllen exch.ange
exchange t:lises
[;lises deep questions: who decides these things~
things? Is it right that
thar
corporare loyalties,
loy.alries, be allowed such influence
someone like Allen, with obvious cOtpQt:lte
ehis level of decision making~
making? And was AI
Al Gore's vision of a supportive govover this
ernment in\'estment
invesrment :as
to be?
be~
cle.anly rational as he made it out to
as de:anly
Looking back on his le:ldership
legislOltive suppOrt
support for the NSFleadership in developing legisl:ltive
s:aid during the 1000
"I took
NET, Gore said
:woo c:unpaign
campaign for u.s.
U.S. president, -I
rook the initiative on the internet." This st:ltement
statement was then attacked in print by libertarian
Wirtd
reporrer Oedan
Wired magazine reporter
Declan McCullough and eventually rwisted
twisted by v:arious
varioils
Republic<lns
rhat Gore uid
said he invented the internet."
internec,4J From
Republicans into the sound bite that
PUndl
there it went on to be<:ome
become a favorite joke of late night comedians and a punch
line in a TV pizza <ld.
ad. It was a false slur, and it was irresponsible of reporters
reporrers
<lnd
politici:lns to repeat thar
cOlmpaign; it seems
and politicians
t!lat sound bite up to the end of the c:llllpaign;
114
114

Networks and the Social Imagination

Nerworks

~Gore said he invented the internet" quip did at least as much

plausible that the "Gore
damage
d.amage to Gore's final
nnal vote COUnt
COUnt as Ralph Nader.
But what's important about this
rhis episode is that, while the sound bite was facrua\ly
was funny. And it was funny because it appeals to a common
rually untrue, it w.as
skepticism about the orderly, managerial mode of thought associated with techas Washington was concerned, the NREN was
far .as
nology policy like Gore's. As ("lr
consistent with traditional
tt:lditional corporate
cotpQrare liberal policy; it was to be a technology test
rest
eventually be implebed, something that
mat would provide innovations thar
that would evenru.ally
seeror. And it would develop 011
mented and broadly deployed by the priv:lte
priv.ate .sector.
on a
b:asis, nearly
national basis,
c0tpQt:Ine.;dy coordinared
coordinated by orderly consortia of established COrpOr:ltions
Dons like IBM .and
and AT&T, perhaps eventually linking up with equally
equ.ally otderly
orderly
systemS
systems developing in other nations around the world. It was all very highNSFNET
minded.
lET initiative
minded.. The information superhighway
superhighw:ly predicted by Gore's NSF
would be used by scientists for sophisticated research :lnd
perhaps as .aa kind of
and pema.ps
dectronic library
parrons would quietly and studiously gather
Iibt:lry where thoughtful
rhoughtful patrons
information.
useful information,
h:ld in mind was
Gore
Gore: did take
r.ake the initiative
initiari\'C on the internec,
internet, but what he h.ad
conveying a cornuhardly the chaotic, explosive phenomenon that
hMd1y
th.at would soon be conveying.a
and irrational
copia of pornography, pop culture,
culrure, conspiracy theories, md
irt:ltional exuberance
of gently .self-mockself-mockha\'e in mind the kind ofgently
throughout the globe. And he did not h:ave
ing, open, delibet:ltive
deliberative process that was taking pl.ace
place on com-priv.

Conclusion
To wha,textenr
what extent did the h.abir
habit ofattention
of:attention to social process thar
that evolved in the 19805
1980s
matter
internet: In the C:lrly
eventual triumph of
m.atter in the history of the intemet~
early 19805, the evenru.al
the internet, especially
especi.ally of the TCP/IP protocol developed for the ARPANET,
foreordained. Numerous other experimental networking efforts
was by no means foreordained,
and Engineering
were running
running;lr
rhe rime,
such as Brit.ain's
Brit:lin's SERCNET (Science .and
at the
time, such.as
Research Council Network),
Cyclades network that inspired some
Netwotk), the French Cycl.ades
of the rechniques
propriet:ary packettechniques thar
that had been brought into TCP/IP,
TCPIIP, and proprietary
m:lnUDCturers such
internerworking sysrems
switched inrernetworking
systems provided by computer manufacturers
K1S networking standard, which
as DEC's OECNET.
DECNET. Most prominently, ~he X.2S
ar the time :and
intern:ational bodwas working commercially at
and h:ad
had the supporr
support of international
relecommunications carriers,
ies and telecommunications
c.arriers, was considered by many to be the obvious
[n Ftance.
wave of the future. In
France, the PTT brought networking to common people
with Minitel, whereas in the
rhe United States, networking remained largely buried away inside universities and the military-industrial
milituy-industrial complex for moSt
most of the
19805.
Minitd and other
ocher teletex
systems seemed to many like the obvious way to
to
1980s. Minitel
telcrcx syStems
interll:ational body
bring digital communication to consumers. 11,e
The conventional international
115

Networks :lnd
Imagination
and the Social
Sociallmaginarion

for $Cuing
hard at dc\'eloping.a
developing a global
setting technical standards,
st.and.ards, the ISO, was
w.as working h.ard.at
than the imerinterp:lcket switching protocol called 051, in theory more adl':lllced
packet
.adl'anced th.an
TCP/IR
ner's TCP/IP.
net's
Moreovcr, by 1980.
1980, the cold war
rhar had gillen
given urgency to ARPAI
ARPA/
Moreover,
w.ar consensus that
DARPA in the 1950S and 1960S W1S
was gone. \Vhen
When the newly elected Ragan
Rt:lgan
Stra:ldministration eng.aged
engaged in some high-tech saber rattling in the form of the Sna.administration
Initiative, the
tbe computer nerworks
networks at Xerox PARC hummed
hUlllmed with
tegic Defense Iniri.ative,
and a network discussion lisr
list W2S
was formed in Ocrober
October
expressions of opposition, .and
of 1981,
which
in
1981
lead
to
tbe
creation
of
Computer
Professionals
for
Social
1981.
the
Responsibility (CPSR). The group became inrernarionally
internationally prominent for rheir
opposirion ro
to Reagan's SDI (popularly known as Srar
Sr:lr W.ars),
Wars), which was based
opposition
that high rechnology-backed
technology-backed by rhe
the Iarest
btest computets-could
?n the theory rhat
computers-could
to shoot down enemy ICBMs. The prognm
program W2S
was not
nOt only destabilizing
be ustd
used to
:IS :IIa belligerent threat,
argued, but it would not
to be percei\'ed
perceived :as
and likely to
thre.at, CPSR .argued,
the F.illible
F.tlJible nature of computing. In sum, the full intensity of the
work because of rhe
heatcd politic.al
political disputes had .appe.ared
appeared within the still riny
tiny world of
day's most heated
computcr
felt it was legitimate
computer networking. Some, like Conway and Kahn, still fclt
we:lpons-rclated research, but that
th:lt choice was
W:lS no longer taken
raken for
to engage in weapons-related
"isions characn:ristic
Char:lcteristic of
granred. The easy combination of social with military \'isions
granted.
Licklider's early work could no longer be assumed.
So why did the internet succeed~
all technological st.andards,
stand:lrds, OIIC
has
succeed: As with aU
one h.u
timing. economics,
ecollomics, or
for a ceruin
certain amount of dumb luck: of accidents of riming.
to allow
.allow for.a
l3etamax \'S.
"S. VHS Story is a F.i\'orire
favorite example; rhe
the adoption
:ldoption in the
politics. The Beumax
stand:lrd for color tele"ision
early
Unired Sr:ltes
United
States of the mediocre NTSC standard
tele\'ision in the arly
1950~ is
i~ another. One needs
need~ to uke
take seriously the
rhe possibility that many or most
mosr
1950S
rhe reasons for rhe
the interner's
internet's e\enrual
eventual success over
~ys
of the
oller other standards and sys:Ire simply ones of historica.!
hisrorical accident. One commonly offered explanation
tems .are
the internet's
inrernet's TCP/IP
TCPlIP standards,
st:lJ1dards, for example, is simply money
llIolley
for the success of rhe
defense department
dep:lttment funding into the 1980s,
1980.1, rhe
the internet's
inrernet's
and timing. Buored
Buoyed by defen~
.and
teached :aa critical mass of effecti\'eness
effecti"cness llJld
at a:l time
timc
TCP/IP standards reached
and users .at
financial supstandards, not:ably
not:lbly 051, were still struggling to achie"e
when other srand.ards,
achie\'e financia.!
pon and political and technial
technical stability. Had some historical accident slowed the
port
OSI up, the argument goes, intemetworking
internetworking may
llIay h:lI'e
have
internet down or sped 051
followc.d:la quitt
quite different parh.
path.
followed
-llut
rerrospect, cle:arly
dearly somerhing
something was done right in the 1980S, and
That said, in retrospeCt,
just the
tbe adoption
adoprion of the
rhar something was nOt
not purely technical; it was not JUSt
that
tcdmologies of packet switching
switcbing and end-to-end design in the
tbe abstract.
specific technologies
some political lessons to be learned
le:ltned from the success
suc(:ess of the internet.
illlernet.
TIlere :Ire
arc sOlne
effe<:ti"e (:ommuniclltions
Most obviously, the internet was not turned into an effective
communications
medium by two guys in a garage,
gar:.lge, by corporate leadership, Ot
or by real or imagined
J 16
Jl6

Networks and the Social

Soci:LI Imagination
hmgin;ltion
Nel:Works

"isions and enttepreneurilll

fables that caused
eaused
market demand."
demand. w The (tee
free market \'isions
entrepreneurial f.ables
o"et the microcomputer in the 1980S .also
also created a
culture to obsess over
American culwre
that for
fot the most part rendered invisible
in"isible the coll:lborative,
blind spot thar
collabor:.lti\'e, social instiinternet. To a Large
large degree, the Context
context ror
fot the creation of
tutions that created the interner.
W:lS defined by nonprofit institutions usinggo\'ernment
using go"ernment funding.
funding, with
the internet was
participation by the private sector,
senor, by individu.a.ls
indi"idua15 consciously working in a collabpanicipation
mode who valued freely sh.aring
sharing information and code within the technical
orative mode.
they were definitely not entrecommunity. \Vhatever
Whatever one m:akes
makes ofthose processes, rhey
those rerms-and the
rhe bro.ad
broad
preneurial or market driven in any obvious senses of rhose
facrwould
ha"e subsr.antial
substantial consequences in rhe
the 1990S.
public ignorance ofthat f:act
would have
what, exacdy, were those processes!
processes~ One can find individua.!s
individuals of m.any
many
But whar,
stripes among me
the computer pioneers of the 1970S and 1980S
1980s who still dn.w
draw di\'erdi"erstripc.s
Nrlium, writgent political conclusions
condusions from the period. Hauben
Hliuben and
lind Hauben's Netizrm,
1990.1 as a critique of rhe marketplace enthusiasms
rime,
ten during the 1990S
emhusi:asms of the time,
de"e1opment point towards
have the lessons of Unix and ARPANET de\'elopmenr
would ha\'e
comlllunitarianism. Yer
Yet Stelle
Steve Crocker, for example,
the value of an antimarket communitarianism.
start-ups; he
hI'. apparently
app:lrently does not see
sec a
has been invol\'ed
invol"ed in several commercial stan-ups;
fundament:ll
"aluing a syStem
fundamental incompatibility between valuing
system in which "results are distributed free of charge around the world to e"erybody"
e\'erybody" and private
ptivate enterprise. If
amongst engineers, it is probably still some version
there is a dominant view
lIiew amongSt
\'ersion of
V:lnnevar
Bush's:
technological
innovarion
requires
a
mix
of
public
lind
priYate
Vanne\'ar
innovation
and ptivate
efforts, where the p.attem
panern is for nonprofit institutions
illstitutions co
to do basic research and
:lnd
effortS,
framtworks and protocols, which are then passed.
perhaps establish shared fn.meworks
passed on to
Conw:lY, for example, has
private industry for de"elopment
pri\f:tte
development into working systems.
sYStems. Conway,
ways
that
her
work
at
PARC
and Later
later have fed into
tepeatedly
emphasi<:ed
the
repeatedly emph.uized
wotk
private start-ups
qualifies the collabon.ti\'e
collaborative sense of what was
the creation of pri\f:tCe
starr-ups and qua.!ifies
"new kind of col1:aborao\'C/comperiti\'e
coll:lborativelcompetiti"e environment.-"
ell"ironment.~"
going on by calling it a -new
there is :aa relative
relativc :autonomy
autonomy of
And, in the end, it must be acknowledged that mere
engineering; engineers who work together are focused above all
al1 on gening
gctring comimperati"e seems ro
to be able ro Cte:lte
create coopen.cooperawork, and that imperati\'C
plicated things to work.
tion among
:lmong engineers with quite different socia.!
social and political proclivities.
rion
PUt of whar
what happened W2S
was that, ror
for key networking pioneers in the 1980S,
1980.1,
Part
lIttention
to
social,
institutional,
and
political
rel:lrions
became
increasingly
folded
attention
rel:ations beame
S:lme way that learning a foreign lanconcerns, In roughly lhe
the same
into their technical concerns.
gramrll:lr ofone's naei\'e
native language, the act
aware ofthe gr:.lmmar
guage often makes one more awatc
Inade one more awate
aware of social relations.
of building computer networks made
rclarions. Di"erse
Diverse
gatew:lYs
between
indi"iduals
and
institutions
est:lblished
effective
tecbnical
individuals
established effecd\'e rechnical gateways bctween netinteroperate, and
:lnd
works, developing protocols that :l11ow
allow different machines to inreroperate,
cornplexities of communication to
broughr many of the material complexities
similar tasks brought
theit awareness. This was nor
not wirhout
f\lrthermore. Over time, the
their
without its pleasures, furthermore.
117

Nerworb
Imaginulon
Networks ;Ind
and the Social Imagination

nelWork grew, (reating

situation whcrc
whete logging in always brought with it thc
the
network
creating a situarion
the discussion
discuuion list, new connections and gateways
possibility of new members of rhe
contacts, As the netwotking
networking pioto other networks-to new people, new social contacts.
TO
neers became more experienced with these fundamentally social aspects of netaffiIirs,
working,
working.. some of them eventually became involved in national legislative affilirs,
in[l;rnational
struggles inside the
ehe militarymilitary_
international regulatory
regulaTOry debates, and some unique snuggles

\Vhen itif comes to

ro smashing
snushing a paradigm, plea$l,l~
plealure is nOt
not ehe
the most importam
important thing.
is ehe
the only thing. [The web browser]
browser) Mo~
Mosaic is nOt
not ehe
the mosr
direct way co
to find
IeIt is
mOSt di""cr
information. Nor is ieit the mo,se
most powerful. [I[t is merely the mo,e
mOst p1e:asurpleasur.
online informacion.
the 18 months
month5 since it w;u
was released, Monic
indted a nuh
rush of
able w:lly,:lnd
way, and in ehe
MO$,l.k has in<ited
excitement :lind
Ihe Net.
Net,
exotement
and commercial energy unprecedented
unJ'"'cwented in the history of the
-Wired, Oct. 1994 (10 monlhs
month. befon
before the
Ihe Nencape
-lVi",J,
Netscape IPO)

the broad public eye, they laid the foundations far

for
industrial complex. Out of rhe
become today's internet, both on the technicallevd
teehnicallevel and on the level
what would bome
of political habits ofgovernance.
of governance.
1983, rhe
the ro-that-point
to-that-point largely informal, open, democr.nic
democr3tic culture of early
In 198],
internet governance and technological development W2S
was given crucial
cruci:!l instituinstiruinrerner
\Vhat could have.
have been a minor aberration in the history of militionalsupport.
support. 'Nhat
tional
tary-funded computing was instead nourished and encouraged so that it would
would by
lay the foundations fOt
for
eventually provide the technology and ethos that would
evenruaIly
would be anothet
today's internet. It ,",,'QuId
another decade before the internet would explode on
global stage and overt:lke
numetous corporate efforts to popularize
popul:!ri:l:e computer
the g10~1
overtake numerous
realiution
of
the long dreamed-of
communication. becoming
the
vehide
for
the
boming
\'ehide
1983 decision to
network, But the Department
Departmenr of Defense's 198]
multipurpose global nerwork.
suppOrt a packet-switched
packet.switched network free from military command hierarchies was
support
a key moment in creating the conditions in which open TCP/IP packet-switched
nctworking was able to gradually evolve into
inro the all-pervasive
aU-pervasive internet.S>
internet," A comnetworking
attuned to the values and pleasures of
ofdecenrrali::ed
munity of researchers already aITuned
decentralized
dle evolution
evolmion
hori::olltal means of governing the
computer networking and informal, horizontal
RFC. and volunury
voluntary committees was given the fundof the technology through RFCs
ing and legitimacy neceuary
necessuy to
to further cultinte
cultivate the network outside the immedimiliury hierarchies
hier:trchies and rhe
the profit imperative,
imperative.
ate pressures of both military
thar the decision was as much a product of
The previous discussion suggests that
COmputer enginttrs
engineers as of specific institutional
the culture of the community of compurer
needs or designs.
designs, A large parr of what would come to triumph with the explointernet is a particular
particul:tr vision of what compUterS
sion of the inrernet
computers are-writing technologies, devices for manipulating and communicating symbols among equalsassociated with a particular kind of informal social vision, a set of beliefs about
partly
human social relarions.
relations, That
TIlat vision first appeared in the
late 1960S at le:lst
rhe [ate
least pardy
1960s counterculture, quietly grew through the 1970S,
under the influence of the 1960S
Il\:lking within
and by the early 19805
1980s had sufficient influence to shape decision making
i. neither monolithic nor self-evidently
self-evidellrly
the Department of Defense. Thar
That vision is
1983
decision
in
particular
illustrates
the extent
politically generali::able.
But
the
198]
generalizable. Bur
about network organization has been shaped as
to which key decision making abom
eOlnlllUllities of innovators as by macrom:llcromuch by the cultures of the relevant communities
structural and economic forces.
118

NeTWorks and the Social

Sociallmaginarioll
Nerworb
Imagination

The Moment of Wired

the Cubicle:
Cubicle:
Revelations in the
Computing in
in the
the Early 19905
1990S
White-collar Computing
Recall-or. if you are young enough, imagine-what it was like to go online in
Recall-or,
At the rime, desktop computers had recently lost their novelty
the early 19905.
199OS. Ar
life. Word processing had, in the preceding
and become a routine parr
part of office life,
live
years,
become
a
standard
secret:llrial
skill, and a new desktop computet
compmer was
five
Standard secretarial skiU,
standard pan
part of an
:lin academic job offer,
offer. The
11le desktop computer had bome
become JUSt
a Standard
routine, like
[ike the photocopier,
another part of office routine.
photocopier.
small minority,
In most offices, however, people who used email were still :Ia smaIl
was unknown, Those
1110se who had experimented with email
enlail a bit
and web browsing W2S
CompuServe, Prodigy,
had done so typically within specific, confined worlds like CompuSet\'C,
bad
of several restricted :IIcademic
Ot corporate
corpOrate networks.
lletworks,
academi, or
local bulletin boards, or one of.severa.!
technically possible wirh
with the computers
computerS that
time was thus te,hnically
Going online at the rime
were on the
rhe desks ofjournalists,
ofjournalists. academics, and other professionals, but
bur it was a
compUter professional,
profeuional, it W2S
was something
Iinle OUt of the ordinary. If you weren't a computer
little
our of curiosity; it took a subsunti:l1
substantial amOunt
amount of time :md
to
you did out
and was unlikely to
m:lJority, comrhe way of immediate
yield much in the
immr:diate practical value. For the vast majority,
If
munications that manered
mattered still happened exclusively on p:llper
paper or on the phone. If
most people around you did not.
110t,
you went online you knew that moSt
Going online typically required
rel:Juired purchasing
purch:llsing and plugging in a roughly paperthem). The
hack-si:l:ed
nOt routinely conic
come equipped with rhem).
back-sized modem (computers did not
lhshing red lightS,
lights, :lind
modem had a bank of mysterious flashing
and using it involved installing, configuring.
termin:lll program, typing commands, listenconfiguring, and then running a terminal
ing to the squealing modem,
modeln, and typing in another cryptic series of commands
p:llsswords. There was no pointing and clicking yet in the online world.Jllst
and passwords.
world. JUSt
"9

it ~ll going wu
was at least a forty-five-mintlte
forty_live_minute time investment. And then fig_
getting it:l.lI
what to do once signed on was a further challenge. GateWOlYS
Gateways between
uring out
our whar
computer nerworks
networks were still being consrructed.
constructed. As a01 result, to send, SOly,
say, an
compurer
email from the BITNET network-then common at less technicOlI
technical universi_
ries-across the still
srilllimited
to be
he undwiched
sandwiched
ries-:across
limited internet, the email addresses had
h:l.d [0
prefitced by IN'l6-thusly:
IN%-thusly: IN%~T
IN'l6"T _STREETER@
between quote marks and prefaced
uvmvax.uvlI\.edu~-and this u~chniC2l
technical detail WOlS
was not
nor euy
easy to find OUt.
out.
uvmvax.uvm.edu-:and
mastered such arcana, you could then enter into a secrel
secret world.
But, once you maslered
d,e conlen
context in which a message appeared on a number of discussion
This was the
February 1993, prefaced with lhe
the following:
lists in FebruOlry
From:IN,, TNC@GITYMI,B1TNEr-TECHNOCULTURE' discussion
FrondN""TNC@GrTVMI.BITNEr-TECHNOCULTUREdiKUSSion
list" u-FEB-I993
12-FEI~-199) 11:48:5639
1l:48:S6.)9
!is(
To:! N""T
N""T_STREETER@uvltwax,uvm.tdu--nlomas
Sm~rer
To:1
_STREETER@uvnwu.uvm~u
" lhomas Sr~n""
PelT)' &r1ow
I~~rlow matS
m~en the
lhe spooks
Subject: John Perry
Folks,
folio.
Thi.lovcly
mi"i~ arne
came from
fronl SURFPUN~
SURFPUNKs (subscription
(aubscription info below). The
Tht'
This Jo..c1y missive
idu ofJPB giving:an
giving an invited <iddros
add~n on tromologr
technology to
10 me
the imdligen:
imelligence (sic) comcom
idea
muniry is just J()OOO
aoooo s....eer.
sweel. And it',
it's a good sptteh,
spCh, roo.
munity
LaIT)' Huntu
Hunter
Larry
The bulk of the messagr:
message was the lext
address given
months before, in
teXl of an Olddress
given:aa few monlhs
Decembet
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) cofounder John Perry
December 1992, by Eleclronic
Barlow to 01a conference on N:ational
National Security ouuide
outside of
ofWashingron,
DC.' As me
the
furlow
Washington, DC'
message m:ade
made dear,
clear, many members
mcnlbets of rhr:
the U.S. intelligr:nce
intelligence community (that is,
the CIA, NSA, FBI)
FUI) werr:
were pusent.
presenr. Barlow's agenda as EFF repusenrarive
representative w:.u
was to
ro
lhe
speech and priv:acy
privacy in
educate this community about
Olbout the value of protecting free sper:ch
realm.
the digital reOllm.
audience, most of us are
arc likely to
Ordinarily, when spaking
speaking to
to a:1 skeptical audir:nce,
adopt a cateful,
careful. formOlI.
formal, conformist rhetorical Str:uegy.
downplay our
ollr
2dopt
$Cnleg)', We would downpby
and differencr:s
differences :md
having deep respeer
disagreements 2nd
disagreemenlS
:and represent ourselves as hOlving
respl for
the audience members. Barlow, however, began his lalk
talk this WOly:
way:
lhe
yOlllhc
Knl~
of
11l":l.ngcnus
that
comu
over
som~one
who
earns his
hi.lh'I can't tell you
dle JCnJC str.mgcness dl'lt comeS
someone ....
ho urns
li,,
wriring Gr:mful
Gmeful Dead .ongs,
~ple who urn
um Iheir
many
ing writing
songs, addressing
addre'iSing people
meir livings al
as nuny
upecially after huring
Ihe last
lut speaker.
lj>C'ak.-r, If you don'r
don't appreciate
of you do, especially
he.aring dle
appreci.are the irony
of our appe...ring
suec~"ion, you have no ""nSe
l~nK of irony at all.",
ofour
appr:1ring in succession,
all..
lh~ ruson
absolulcly nothing to do with the Gmeful
111e
reUOn I am here has absolutely
Grateful Dead.
I'm
I m~t a fellow named Milch
Despile obvious
I'nl here because lOleta
Mitch Kapor in 1989. Despire
diffe~nces. I felt
fclt as if we'd
wea both been up in the same
nucer or
.. , thar
that
differences,
SOlme saucer
Or something
somerhing ...
we shared
sh...rtd a sense of con'puten
mOTC.lhan
JUSt better adding machines
machinICs or a
cOOlpmas being mOre
than just
better rypewriten;.
rypewriten. We saw
uw that
rim computers,
computen, connected
conn~cled together,
rogedler, had the capacbetteT

110

llle Moment
Momel1r of Wired
Wirrd
'TIle

cre...re an mvironment
mvironmenr which human
hum...n beings
bdngs could
inh... bit.. " 111e
'111e
iry to create
co~tld and did inhabit....
~ple
who
shue
this
aw,.eness
ar~
narives
of
rhe
future,
People
who
ha~
a
h...rd
people
sh:lre
awareneu arc
the future.
have hard
with irit may always
lwa),$ be
be: immigrann.
immigl":l.nts,
rime ....ith
Mirch and
nd I saw rhat
thai computers had created
cruted a pbce,
plu~. we $tarred
starl~d asking
When Mitch
what kind of place it w:u....
was" .. We decided to name it
SOme questions about whac
ir Cyberspace, after
afrer Bill Gibson's descriprion
description ofa
of a futuri.ric
futuristic place mher
rather like it which we
found in his novel Neuromancer.'
Neuromal1cer.'
round
cenrral example of some h2bits
habits of l.J.lk
talk and thought
Here is a01 central
thoughl that would
into thr:
rhe mainnream
mainstream with enormous impact.
impacr. Barlow WOlS
was the
soon be moving inro
key figure in importing the
tbe rerm
term cybwJ"lu
eybuspace from
fi-om the world of science-lictionscience-fictionf.m pmgn.mmers
programmers into
inro middlebrow discourse; hete2frer,
heteafter, the internet
interner could be
&n
just as .aa tool or set of devices with predictable polentials,
potentials, but
bur as
envisioned, not jusl
space to
to be explored 2nd
and lhus
thus aV2iJable
aV.:.lil.:.lble for any number of collecan unknown Space
tive projr:ctions,
projections, particularly the frontier met2phor-mOlde
met.:.lphor-made explicil
explicit in the name
Barlow's found2tion.
foundation. Bur
But this pamcul2r
particular refiguring of the fronner
frontier metaphor
of B2rlow's
W.:.lS also heavily inBa::led
inflected with tropes ftom
from lhe
the 1960S
counterculrure; Barlow's
W2S
19605 counterculture;
Cwe'd borh been up in the s.ame
same saucer
missive featured a studied informality rwe'f
s:aucer
missivr:
w
or something.
something.~ ~Mitch,~
~Mir(h,~ "Bill"');
~Bilr); 2a pleasure
pleasute in iconoclasm rif
(Wif you don't 2ppreciappreciate the irony"); and .aa f1ambop.m
flamboyant individualism
:ate
individu.alism (in the EFF's relentless focus
on personal priV2ey
privacy :Illd
and liberties),
liberties). But this bit of Compuler
computer counterculturalism
counlerculruralism
also h:.J.d.:Ill
had an associnion
association with power (the CIA!). And, crucially, in :aa classic counaI.so
[erculrural maneuver,
m;meuver, instead of flattering
Hattering his audience or downpl.aying
downplaying his diftercultural
ferences from them, furlow
Barlow offers them a choice between being one who gets
gcts it
ir
Accept his rhetoric:.al
rhetorical universe, 2nd
and you are a01 ~native
"native of the
and one who doesn't. ACtq't
fUrure:' Reject it, howevr:r,
however, 2nd
and you are
arc lhre2tened
threatened with always being an immifurure.~
gt3nt lhere.
thcre.
gt"2nt
me time,
rime, r=ding
rcading a missivr:
missive like this on a monochrome screen, perhaps durdutAt lhe
late 2l
at night
nighr at home, had an arresting
ing a slow day at the office or perhaps lue
effect,
Ihe lone cubicle dweller who had mastered
mastertd
effect. Barlow's
BOlr!ow's email suggested to the
email th.at
that a nr:w
new semc
rhe online world. Tht
sense of energy was emerging in the
The inconofficiab was funny, of
gruous juxtaposition of a Grateful Dead
Dc:l.d lyricist with CIA official..
but also enticing; how many people get inviutions
invitations to talk to
to CIA offiCOurse, bur
cials, much less go on to lweak
tweak the officials' noses and
Olnd get away with it!
itf Here was
SOmeone whose tax br;lcket
bracket and espionage experience were probably comparable
was boldly preaching to an established,
esublished, powerful, and sometimes
to yours, yet he \VOlS
opening, a new avenue towards
violent institution. The situation suggested a new opening.
power. As a white-collar reader of this text in early 1993,
'993, you felt uniquely privy to
pOWer,
this intriguing opening because you were among the elite few who had mastered
rhe procedures needed to
arcanc art of online access. The relative obscurity of the
the arcane

121

The Momenr of Wired

auta of being part of a spial

special group. You, who
the message only added to
to the aura
get me
the joke and technically could get access to it, were invired
invited to be
he one of
both gor me
the
v:mguard, one of Barlow's ~nati\'es
"natives of the future.~
future." h
me vangu;rrd,
It gave you a new sense of
what it mam
meant to be sitting in one's office typing.
ryping. a new, hipper, les.s
less ordinary, sense
of self.
effecc was indeed delicious.
The effect
professionals and white-collar workers
In the early 1990S, growing numbers of profession:ds
were being surprised by this kind of experience on their
rheir desktop computers. As
~riety of online access increased from month to
the number of people with some variety
month.
and more
[110re people had an experit:nce
experience of stumbling
srumbling upon something
month, more ;Illd
sTtiking; it could be a surprising exchange on an email discussion list, involving a
striking;
tidbit of insidt:r
insider information from afar.
revelaafllr. Or it could be a titillating personal revela_
Illoment when stories of email romances began to circulare
circulate in
tion; this was the moment
popular folklore. h
It could be a new fonn of access to something or someone, like
the personal MTV gopher created as a hobby by MTV vee-jay Adam Curry;
me
accessing his gopher gave one a kind of petsonal
personal access to a media figure, to somethe television screen.
scrt:en.
one ordinarily shielded behind the glossy professionalism of (he
treated TO
ro a Barlow-like iconoclastic moment in April
(Fans of this gopher were treaTed
[994 when Curry, with
wiTh a 19605
1960S Aourish
Rourish of rebellion,
rehellion, announced his resignation
1994
from MTV on air. He was resigning in order to pursue his digital activities full
theory that me
the digital world was the wave of the
time, on the then-astonishing thoory
future, and television was obsolete.)1
obsolete.)' Something
the ordinary, it .seemed,
seemed,
fUture,
Somerhing out of me
was afoot.
St;ues, the microcomputer indusrry
industry hOld
had
By the early 1990S in the United $tues,
was no longer enchOinting.
enchanting. Microcomputers so far were
triumphed, but it wu
rurning out
oue to be
he office machines, OInd
and most of the computers in the home
turning
oue to be mosdy
mostly wOlys
w:l.ys to do office work after
:I.fter hours. Most of the 19805
1980s
turned our
effons
home market-for example, the
elforrs to sell computers specifically for the
rhe hOllle
rhe
Sincl:.J.ir, the
PCJt-had gradually disapSinclair,
rhe Commodore 64, the Atari, the IBM PCJr-had
pe:lred. The little
linle compurers
compun:rs did nor seem quite so personal :l.nymore.
Not
anymore. Nor
peared.
the desktop
computer become a co[n[l1onplace
:1.11
only had (he
deskrop compurer
commonplace of office life, wirh all
its associiltions
:lssociations with buraucraey,
buruucracy, but the compOinies
companies that made microcompurmicrocomputirs
ers no longer seemed like the boisterous garage starr-ups
start-ups of popular capitalist
capit:llist
en
mythology; by 1990, Microsoft had pushed aside the
rhe grey, arrogant,
arrog:lnt, predierpredictable monopoly of IBM-and
113M-and replaced it with another grey, arrogam,
arrogant, predict.tble
:l.ble monopoly.
.tble
And, as Barlow's message was
W;lS circulating in email discussion lists and newsnewSgroups, [he
the firsr
\Vit('d had just hit tht:
the newsstands;
newsst:lnds; wirhin
within a year
ye2r it
ir
first issue of Wiml
h;lve 2 circulation of Oller
100,000 and a curious re:ldership
sever:l.l times
over 100,000
readership several
timCS
would h.tve.t
th2t."
th.tt.'
122
Ill.

Wite'J
The Momenr of Wil'td

From "Information Superhighway" to "Cyberspace" and

HabitllS of Knowledge Workers
the Habitus
internet enmusiums
enthusiasms of the
as utoThe interner
me 1990S have
ha\"C frequently been described .ts
pian, but it W2S
was really me
the inronnacion
information superhighwOIy
superhighway scen.trio
scenario that was utopi:ln, in the
for .ta bener
better fUture.
future. Cybersp.tee,
Cybersp:lce, by
me sense of offering a blueprint ror
pi.tn,
contrast, was m.tde
made famous
mmous in the precedent-setting novel of cyberpunk fiction,
contr;l;5t,
NeUr01l11lllur, which depictS
neat-future world of technological
depiers a near-future
rechnological vioGibson's N~urolllllllCt:r,
lence, cruelty, manipul:ltion,
manipubtion, and cynical disaffection-a
thac is distincdy
distinctly
dis.tffeerion-a world that
!ence,
appeal of Neuromallrer
NturOI'WIKtr is less utopian rhan
dlall romantic. Its t.tle
tale
dystopian. The .tppe.tl
narr:ltive of an auteur
outcast hero on .ta desperate quest
of a ~console cowbo( is .ta nuracive
initiated by a soreh,
search, not for wealth, but for inner tr.tnsform.tcion-for
transformaTion-fot lo"e,
love,
comr:l.deship, and me.tning.
nleaning. but also, as if to make me
the inner transfonn.ttion
transformation
comradeship,
poinT vivid, an internal physical
physic:ll reprogramming so as to allow for bener
poim
buter net
traveling.
m.veling.
To the computer-operating white-collar worker in me
the early '990S,
1990S, Neuromanet:r
Nrllrl'JIIWllur
scory line th.tt
that redefined the act of sining
sirring at a keyboard
keyoo:lrd emering comprovided .ta Story
mands from one of white-collar
white-collat drudgery imo an act of exploration and advenm.tnds
illtemet as 3a space,
space. a territory
rerritory for adventure,
ture. Cyberspace, by defining the internet
rather
than
as
merely
a
highway,
cowards the end of acces.sing
accessing already
r.tther
highw.ty, a means towards
org:lIli%ed information,
infonnation, suggested a new potential self-definition for knowledge
organiud
biformatioll superhighway
$14pulJighll'ay sounds clean, obedient, and orderly. The conworkers. Illformafion
notations of cybmIMu
rykNpau are darker, les.s
less regimenred,
regimented, more salry-but
scary-but thereby
mereby more
nocations
thrilling.
Late
at night. alone in
ill one's cubicle.
cubicle, cybmIMCt:
rykNpact had
h:ld .ta much more alluring
mriUing.
.tt
Cybersp:l.cc did not
nOT ol'kr
offer a Utapia,
uropi:l, a petfecred
perfected world;
wond; it
iT offered a taste
raste of
ring. Cyberspace
selfhood.
rebel-hero seUhood.
think that romances and revolutions come
conle from
frolll nowhere,
nowhere. as if they
We like to rhink
are
their
OWIl explanation and driving force. But of course there's generally a conown
.tre
CU:t like a mid-lift:
mid-life ctisis
frustrated and underemployed
unden:mployed middle class dur
that sets
text
crisis or a frustrared
the conditions for The
ch:lI1ge. The
'TIle S:lme
of online compuring
computing
s.tnle is true of the
rhe spread ofonline
me
me change.
199005.
early 1990S.
in the e.trly
l'yber$I'IIU oudil'ed
outlived information
iliformll/ioll superhighwllY
popular
To understand why cyberspau
JuperhigbwllY in popuhr
exactly what kinds of people were getting online access
usage, it helps to consider ex.tctly
~ge,
in
IJl

early 1990S.
199005. Typical
Typic;ll discussions of social class and computer usc focus on a
the e.trly

haves versus havt:-notS

have-nors continuum, where the concern is extending the benefits of
ha\cs
computer use lower down on the class
c!:l.SS ladder. But
illuminaring to look
COmputer
Bur it is also illumin.tcing
upwards on the l:ldder
ladder as well: Both Bill Gates
janitor that
G.ttes and the j.tnitor
rhat empties your
upw.trds
office trash bin can ger along fine without desktop computers in Ihe
the day-to-day
\\Iork lives. Computers have become .ta cemral
feature of the
of thtir
their work
central fe.tture
rhe work lives
of
the
knowledge
or
professional
classes,
a
group
That
includes
middle
.pecifically
d.tsses,.t
that
specifically
123
123

Wit"l'iI
The Momenrof
Momenr ofWiml

managel'll, engineers, mid-level

mid-Icllc\ government
gOllemment bureaucratS,
bureaucrats, aCJldemics,
academics, and journaljournal.
managers,
iSts-white-collar knowledge workers.
ists-white-coUJlr
till': eOlrly
tarly 19905,
was the (.,ct
thon online acces.s
acctu
the character of the
Crucial to rhe
1990S, then, wu
f..ct th:1t
first among those
thost who did their
tlKir OWl!
Iud the neces_
nectscame firsr
OWII word pro(l':jjing
processing and thus had
sary equipment and experience
experienct readily
at hand.
hand, Graduate students and assistant
~adily u
provosts. Middle manprofessors were online before university
uni\'ersity presidents and pro\'Osts.
CEOs,
agers, technicians, and engineers were online before vice presidents and CEOs.
agus.
relatively
journaliSts were online before editors and managers.
TIlis is a ~Iatively
Mid-level journalists
managen. This
unusual pattern of technological diffusion; networking entered social life through
through the top-down difdif_
the same portal uas the photocopy machine rather than rhrough
the telephone or the consumer-distribution patterns of televitclelli
fusion patterns of rhe
111is patrern
pattern rhus
thus meant
me:.ant that the sense of something importam
important happening
sion. This
in networking would hir
hit the middle ranks of the knowledge dus
class before it hit
their superiors.
theit
supcrllighway, and the corporate libet:ll
liberal technology policy
The information superhighway,
halle been reasonable, forward looking, and economically
for which it stood, may have
rarional. Bur
Dut it lacked a sense of enchamment,
enchantment, Developing government-business
gOllernmellt-business
rational.
partnerships that would encourage investment in wide-area computer networkpartnetships
exchangt may have been a good idea, bur,
ing for purposes of information exchange
but, for the
belly,
dwellet, it did nor
typical cubicle dweller,
not generate much fire in the belly.
199;:, the stage was thus set
ser for the middle ranks
In the years leading up to 1995,
high
to be treated to a drama of obliviousness from above, an objecr lesson in highlevel bewilderment. Ir
It was the people who typed their own memos, reports, term
le\d
the internet first md
and
import2nce of rhe
papers, 2nd
md journal articles who sensed the importance
Cyberspact, with
wirh its
watched the higher-ups snuggle
srruggle to catch up with them. Cyl>uspau,
then warched
rOtllantic him
hinr of a rebellious self image, better captured the sense
,~ense ofpleasure
of pleasure and
rom:mtic
trump the
[he staid
rhey felt in watching their secret world rrump
open-ended possibility they
world of
or their superiors.
superiors,
,",'Orld

[he Countercu)ture:"They
Councerculrnre:"Thcy JUSt
Just Don'[
Don't Get
Get It"
Ie"
Tropes from [he
Wired. had experienced both the original 1960s
19605
Louis Rossetto, cofounder of Wirrd,
COUllterculture and
2nd irs
its emerging computer-culmre
cOmputer-culture variant, the former
fOflner:l.S
col
counterculmre
as :Ia coldie latrer
latter as the editor of a small journal :lbout
about desktop comlege student, rhe
EI~(lrir Word,'
Word. l He has said he modeled Win"d
Wired on the early
publishing. Electric
puter publishing,
Rolling Stour-rhe
Stont-the sincere, preironic, early 19705
1970S Rolliug
Rollillg StOlle, when it was
Rollillg
stars as oracles of
or a revolution
based in San Francisco and celebrated rock StarS
Rossetto frequemly
frequently dismissed m:linstre:l1TI
mainstream media's
in human consciousness,
consciousness," Rosscno
it'-' 11,e
technology cOllerage
coverage with the phrase, "they just don't get it.""
The phrase is

124

WI11:a
The Moment of Wired

parr of the rhetoricOlI

rhetorical foundation
found3rion of ourlets
outlers like the hacker website Sluhdot
Slashdot or
part
Wired; in the constanr
constant cavalier
c2valier dismissal of vaguely
\I:l.guely defined, old~
Wirrd;
Nold" institutions
instimtions
IIiew (for example,
example. Microsoft, television networks, government
gOllernment
2nd
and points of view
:Ire Aattering
flattering readers by implicitly
Keynesianisrn) these media are
bureaucracies, Keynesianism)
implicirly
all2nr-garde. As John Perry Barlow wu
was
including them
rhem in the knowledgeable avant-garde.
the mammals,
mammab, and those
rhose powerful people
fond of implying, You are one of us, rhe
dinosaurs.
are the dinosauts.
'When a marginal social movement accurately anticipates in the public eye a
\Vben
leadership, the effect can
significant historical f..ilure
failure ofjudgment on the part of leadenhip,
powerfuL Being right about something when the powers th:lt
thar be were wrong.
wrong,
be powerful.
example, was a central collective experience
experiellCe of the 1960s counterculture; by
for example,.
telellision networks,
networks. the Nrw
New York Timrs,
Timej, and
1969, the world had watched the television
political establishment change rheir
their position On
on the VierVietmany members of the politil:al
f.,i1ure to
importance
nam War. In the mid-1990S, it would be the failure
to anticipate the importmce
of the
che internet,
and, in the late 1990S the value of open software.
software, And parr
part of rhe
the
interner, :lnd,
to iconoclasm and to
power of such moments is that they open the door to
to new
thoughr; if the
rhe authorities are
arc wrong about that
lhat one thing,
thing.. what else
currents of thought;
mighr
they
have
missed?
might
collective experience establishes
At the same time, this kind of collccrive
establish'es the conditions
for
dearly beneficiOlI
beneficial drawing
fot a less clearly
dtawing of boundaries between those who knew and
the listener that
th2t he at
or she and the
those wllo
who didn't. Vv'hat
\har this phrase does is tell rhe
don'r could be the
rhe
P2rt of the elite group who ger
speaker are part
get it,
it. 11,e
The ones who don't
Penragon, the media, or your pa~nts;
parents; in any case, there's a:I thrill in the implic2implicaPentagon,
ri,e world,
tion that
chat you and I stand apanapart from despised others in rhe
rion
If being righr
right about some central client
like
Vietnam
or the internet gives the
evenr
thetoric of getting it force, accuracy
accura,y in general
genera! is not necessary or even
ellen a pteconpreconrhetoric
'Illc internet
inrernet was only discussed in passing in
for the rhetoric to work. The
dition fot
Wir~d's fint
first issue; Rosseno
Rossetto had to catch
careh up to the cenrrality
centrality of the internet like
Wirras
elleryone else in the media, And, more importantly, once the rhetorical ground
everyone
established by whatever means, a powerful [fOpe
trope for &huning
shutring down inquiry is
is esrablished
a\l:l.ilable. In rhe
the interview
interlliew mentioned above, when Rossetto was asked if
made
nude available.
replied ~no."
~no'- When asked if he's an atheist,
2theist, he :.also
replied -no,N
~no,w
he's religious, he ~plied
also ~plied
and
then
continued:
~It's
not
worth
thinking
abour...
,
I
mean,
I've
gone
beyond
~d
-It's
about....
it.... The
TI,e rhetoric of-they
ofthey JUSt don't get
ger it~
ic~ can create
creare conditions thar
that make this
It....
wis~, The teader
reader or heater
hearer is made
kind of shutting down of inquiry sound wise.
mOlde autoquestioning.. or complexity, evell
ellen to themmatically wary of voicing any criticism.
criticism, questioning,
wrong.. you risk revealing
rellea!ing
telves.
Idves. Express doubts, and you risk being worse than wrong,
prillileged club; you JUSt
)'ourself to be a dinosaur and rhus no longer part of the privileged
yOurself
don't get it.

12S
125

TheMomenrofWird
The Moment of Wirt'd

The Moment of Mosaic: The Pleasure of Anticipation

By mid-1993, then, a growing

crowd ofmid-rank white-collar computer users was
By
gtowingcrowd
wu
quietly gaining access to networked computing; and a growing portion of these
were learning about and using the nonprofit, nonproprietary internet.
internee. l"hes
Thesee
wert:
experiences were ~coming
becoming increasingly inAected with counterculrural
counterculcural habits
habiu
and iconoclasm,
iconocbsm, and the higher ranks of leadership, the CEOs and politicians,
politi6ans.
context proved extremely
were largely
b.rgely oblivious co
to it all. This Conten
wert:
eXtremely fertile ground for
fOr
progn.m c:llled
a new, freely disrributed
distributed computer program
called Mosaic, the first successful
graphiC:ll
1.0 for the Macintosh and PC was released in
graphical web browser. Mosaic 1.0
&11 of that year. TIle
August 1993 and spread like wildfire through the f:lll
The program
nlOtivaringordinarily
created an almosr
almost instant wow effect,
effect. motivating
ordinarily bored or preoccupied
cubicle dwellers to call a colleague and tell them, "you gOtta
gOtt.;! try this thing."
thing."
started, This was the moment of take-off in rhe internet
l11is was where it all started.
This
frenzy
fren~ of the 1990S.
Mos:aic,
Mosaic. it needs be said, was neither the first web browser nor even the first
graphical
browser. 9 When two
twoemployccs
Universityoflllinois's
gra:phica.l web browser.'
employet;s ofthe University
of Illinois's National
(NCSA), Eric Beena
undergradu;ne
Center for
ror Supercomputing Applications (NCSA).
Been.a and undergraduate
1991, they
Marc Andrtt$SCll,
Andreessen, decided to
to program a beccer
better browser near the end of t991.
Man:
were
\vere simply making
nuking their own contribution
oontribution to an ongoing networking software evolution based on ideas that
very much in the air. Their main technical
th.at were already \.try
Mos,1ic for
rot Unix was the ability to
to display im;lges
images
contribution in the first
conrribution
firsr version of Mosaic
within the page and a slicker.
slicker, more inviting imernce.
Another important
interface. Anodler
importanr comribucontribubrowscr relused
released in
tion was the production of PC and Macimosh
Macintosh versions of the browser
August 1993. These versions, programmed
progr:ullIned by
bY:l.a larger
b.rger team
ream of
mostly
undergradu:lTe
ofmostly ulldergraduate
programmets,
programmers, made the browsing experience mote
more widely available.
modesr contriburion,
contribution, arguthen, Mosaic was a useful but modest
Technically speaking. then.
35, say, SMTp,
SMTP, the WWWprotocoliuelf,ortheSLlPand
WWWprotocol itself, Ot the 5L1 P and
importanr as.
ably not as important
PPJ> protocols dut
that enabled connection (Q
PPP
to the internet via:l
vi.a a modem. And Monic
Mouic
was cleuly
cleatly not as importam:l
technical comribution
TCJ>/IP
importanr.a technic.al
oontribution as the underlying TCP/IP
and:lll
software that
thar h.ad
had been written to implement
implemenr
packet switching protocol and
all the soltw.are
it on a wide variety ofcomputers. Mosaic did noc
iton
nor make it possible to conneCt
oonneC"t to the
and protocols did th.ar.
that. And Mosaic did not make the
internet. Other programs .and
internet friendly; it simply made it somewhat friendlier. And it is safe w
to say that it
a question ofefficiency; MOJai'
Mosaic was
waS:l;lslow
slow and cumbersome
cum~nomeway fa
to get inforwas not aquestion
particularly on the gnphics-impaired
gr.lphics-impaired computers of the first
Mosaic
firsr years. Mouk
mation, p;lrticularly
WU:I
fine
program,but
it
was
not
a
revolutionary
work
ofgenius
by
any
definition.
was a
program, but w.as
definicion.
50 why did Mosaic become the
internet~ 'Nhy
v.'hy did its direct
So
rhe killer
kilter app of the intemerf
1990S~ Part of it was
successor Netscapc
Netscape launch rhe "inrernet
"internet economy" of the 1990Sf
simply the
tlte cumulative
econO'
cumul.arive critical mass or
of people and technologies, what some ana126

11le
The Moment of Wirrd
\Virrd

mists
rnists call network
nerwork effects; enough computers were becoming
~ooming graphics-capable,
graphics-capable.
enough of those computers were becoming connected to LANs, and enough of
those LANs were being connected
(Q the internet.
conneered (0
internet, that being on the internet W:lS
was
becoming more and more v:duable.
valuable.
chat Mosaic wasn't so much efficient as it was plC2.mnble;
pleasurable; using
But it's crucial that
/irst reaJly
compelling.
fun
experiences
available on the
Mosaic was one of the first
reilly
.available
tried to downplay it for that very reason:
internet. Same
Some computer professionals Died
011 their PCs,"
"Mosdy, people use Mosaic to show off the money they spent on
PCs,~
-Mosdy;
observed one software
"you can call
sottw.are executive, you
caU somebody over and say, 'Look at
whi'Z-bang ;lppeal.
appea.l....
this.'
this: It has gOt that kind of whiz-bang
... It's
Ie's like the first time you go
to wander
w:lnder through the stacks, pulling down books.
the library: Ir's
It's fun (0
through tile
Buc of course we now know in retrospect that the fun of
olf"'e But
But that does wear off."'
web browsing was llOt
not about to wear off any time
rime soon.
What kind of pleasure did Mosaic offerf
offer~ Mosaic did not sarisry
'Nhat
satisfy desire,
desite. it
provoked it. Colin Campbell has descri~d
desaibed Wh3t
wh:tt he calls "modern
Hmodern :lutOllomous
.autonomous
structure of pleasure
plcasure in which the
imaginative hedonism; .aa distinctly modern StrucCUre
becomes pa.rt
part of the pleasure itself and which is charch:tranticipation of pleasure beoomes
acreristic
of
the
consumer
culture
:lnd
romanticism
generally."
Wh:l.[
one
wants
acreriscic
culcure and
Whu
peculi:trly modem
modern fonn
form of pleasure.
pleasure, Campbell
in this peculiarly
C.ampbdl :trgues,
.argues, is not the satiation
sati.ation
of desire but desire itself; it is the desire to desire. Mosaic did not so much show
IOmC<lne something they wanted or needed to see .as
as it stimulared
lOmeone
stimul.ated one to image:lrly classic W3ys
ways to demonstrace
ine what one mig/It
migllt see. One of the early
demonstrate the wcb
web
was to click
ror the
watch grainy images of paintings
p:tintings
dick onto
OntO the wcbsite
website for
rhe Louvre, to W3rch
aJowly appear on the screen. This W:lS
pleasura.ble so much in what it
alowly
was not pleasurable
ir actually
delivered-berter versions of the same images
illlages generally could be found in any
delivered-better
rhe experience inspired the viewer to im3gine
imagine
number of art books-buc
books-bur in how the
W~t e[jr
cur miglJt
miglJl bl'
be delivered. Mosaic enacted
what
en.acted a kind of hope; it did not deliver new
l'OJJibility of new things. Surfing the web using
things
rbing~ so
s~ much as a sense of the JXlliibility
MoS:lic
in the earl.y
eady days shared
featufCS with the early stages of a romanMosaIC" In
sh;lred certain features
affair or the first phases of a revolutionary
tic :I.1F.lir
rel'Olurionary movement; pointing. clicking, :lnd
and
watching images
appe:tr genera.ted
...tching
im.ages slowly .ap~r
generated a sense of anticipation,
anticipation. of possibility.
dreamlike, compulsive quality of web surfing in the early days
To engage in the dreamlike.
Was an immersion in an endless what'S
what's nexcf
next~
'Ifas.an

The Genesis of irrational

Irrational Exuberance:
M:lrket
Romanticizing the Market

By
By May 1993, white-collar workers 5carrered
scattered in cubicles and offices across the
quiedy discovering lhe
thrill~ orgoing
the thrills
of going online, as Andreessen
AndreesSCll and others
land Were <juietly
Worked
Mosaic, as the likes ofJohn Perry Barlow
Badow and the
edirorial
WOrked on the code for Mosaic.
rhe editorial
J27
12.7

The Moment of W,,,,d

WiTl"d

staff of Wiud
\Vired were spruding
rhe tropes
rropes of the computer counterculture to the
spreading the
middle ranks. But
Bur the mainstream was still
srill thinking other things. That month,
NewJ and
mId World Re/X'rt
Report published a "technology
Htcchnology reportreport" 3bout
abour the coming
US. Neil'S
clearly a response to the enthusiasm
enthusiaslll
future of networked computing. The article, deuly
surrounding Vice President AI
Al Gore's information superhighway initiatives,
initiarives, had

u.s.

no memion
mcntion of the internet. It began,
111C mdding
melding of the Idq>hone.
telephone, television
relevision and pcnonal
personal computet
computer to(hy
today has
The
unleashed
thar promises
promi$u to [;1dial1y
radically :alter
alter the way
unl~:I.a dynamic digital
digit:al revolution
revoIurion tim
live, work and pby
play :around
around thc
the world. Wlut
lNhar neW produro
products and services
ICrvicu
people liw..
can
expect from this tedmologic:al
technological upheaval!
upheaval,> How big:l.
big a marker,
exaCTly, arc
C:I.ll we apecr
~rlra, t:aafy.
we nlking
talking :l.ooln!
aboutl And what,
ifanything.
should the Climon
admini$rr:nion do to
to
"oe
wlut. if
an}'Ihing. shoukI
Clinton adminisrnl.Oon
help foster Ihese
rechnol~ in Americ:a1"
America:'"
tI1uc emerging technologies
1his
convenrional way of underst:mding
understanding things at the time-in
busi
This w.u
was the conventional
time~in the business terminology of producrs,
products, services, and markers.
markets. From there
thete the article went
on to
(0 seek answers from "seven titans
oftechnology": Bill Gues,
tirans oftechnology-:
Gates, shopping-channel
Barry Diller, AT&T Chair Robert Allen, cable TV tycoon
trCOOn John Malone,
pioneer Bury
hoard vice chairman Jack Kuehler, cell phone magnate
magn:lte Craig McCaw,
IBM board
ch:lir George Fisher. The article was thus organized around the
and Motorola chair
assumprion
that,
whatever happened, it would be shaped primarily by corporate
assumption
wh:ltever
leadership :md
and corporate concerns, perhaps in interactions
imeractions wirh
with govemment
government reg
regulators
uluots spurred on by initiatives coming from the White House. Gates predicted
interconnected with home appliances. Others forecast
a w:llletsi;:ed
wallet-sized personal PC imerconnected
shopping, ubiquitous
ubiquirous multimedia communicaa lucrative cornucopia of online shopping.
tion for business executives,
eKecutives, movies-on-demand, distance
di.stance education via cable TV,
services. All expressed an ambivalence
ambiv:llcnce about gm-oem'
governand growing wireless data scn'ices.
ment's
role,
expre~~ing
:lppreciation
for
the
excitement
generated
by
Gore
and the
ment'S
expressing appreciation
Clinron \Vhite
White HOllse
bllt cautioning government regulators to stay out of the
Clinton
House bur
way of corporate initiatives. This was a view from the
top.
me tOP'
Andreessen and his colleagues were quietly releasing
TInee
months larer.
later, :IS
Three momhs
as Andr~n
the first version of Mosaic for me
the Macintosh and me
rile Pc.
PC, the August
iuue of
me
Augusr issue
Sciemific American
AmerjcMI appe2red
appeared with
overview an:ide."
article." In keeping
kecping with it5
irs
Scienlific
wim a similar o"erview
more sophisticared
sophisticated readership, the article contained much more technical derail,
derail.
comparing the bandwidth and cost ofvarious
of various transmission technologic.
technologies like fiber
opric
cable
and
ISDN,
for
example,
and
its
interviewee.
were
generally further
optic
irs interviewees
from the boardroom and closer to the research lab. Bur the basic organizing
assumptions of the article were the same as the recent US News
Nrws piece; the bulk of
v:lriOtlS corporations and their tcchnologically
technologically linked interthe article focused on various
medi;1
ests, comparing and comrasting
contrasting the schemes of various cable, phone, and medi:t
companies, interspersed with various inside-the-beltway regulatory concer.us.
concernS,
application. of the coming
lisr of possible applications
comlllg
such as common carrier principles. The list
128

The Moment of \Virt'd

Wirrd

tet:hnology
information and education than shoptechnology leaned a little more towards infonnation
ping: a cut-out
cur-out boK
contained
descriptions
of .chool
box
school children communicating by
Ant3tctica, a broadcast engineer who helped diagnose
email with a researcher in Anu.rctica,
hi.
disease using online databa.es
email, an elCperiment
experiment with
databases and email.
his daughter's rare disuse
sending dental X-t:l.YS
X-rays :lcross
Adamic, and a group of New Jersey schoolchilacroS.5 the Atbntic,
dren communicating with teachers
te:lchers in Russia,"
Russia." The
TIle World Wide Web was not
nor
mentioned.
l1lis article, ho.....C\er,
however, dors
lc opens with an anecdote
This
docs mention the internet. It
Society President Vinton Cerf prep2ring
preparing for a Congressional
about Internet Societ}'
hearing by conucting
to the
contacting thousands of enthusiasts over che
the internet, poiming
pointing to
bearing
rapidly growing activiry
acriviry on the internet as a potential"scedpotential Hseed" of Gore's -National
"National
npidly
Information Infrastfucture.H'1
HDomesricating CrberCybetInfrastructure."" And rhe article
an:icle is titled "Domesticating
space"
space- and closes with a Congressional Representative echoing Barlow's metaphorical construction of the online world as a frontier: -Allything
HAnything is a danger in
cybersp:lce.... There are no rules. It's the Wild \Vest."'
West."I011le
The Bulow-inspired
Barlow-inspired metcyberspace....
aphotical constructs of its
irs tirle
title and opening and closing paragraphs-a vision of
aphorical
a wild,
wild. expansive,
eKpansivc, exciting
eKciting space in the inrernet~would
internet-would prove to resonate more
profoundly than the content :lbout
corpor:lte
srruggles, educational applications.
applications,
about corporare struggles.
Amrrican's readership is
SciClllific AmeriwlI's
and competing delivery technologies. Perhaps ScirlJ/ific
specialized,
specialized. but that readership includes politicians, eKecutives,
executives, and, mosr
most imporcandy
beillg among the category
historr, repOrters-reporters
repOrters~reporters being
tantly at this moment in history,
of people who do their own word processing.
l1lis was the moment that the intcrnet
internet hit the media radar. As summer turned
This
to fall in 1993, the internet rather
rarher suddenly became
bec:lme an object of media fascinalO
tion. Scon Bradner,
long-rime internet insider."
insider," observed with some bewilderBradner,:la long-time
ment that-the
that "the Interner
best known to the
Internet is suddenly popular....
popul:ll'.... For reasons beSt
media gods, articles about the Internet scem
seem to
to be the thing to do these days,days." He
mcdi:l.
OUt that
the fall
1993, a time when only
only:aa miniscule number of
pointed out
mat during che
f.ill of 1993.
imernec access,
:access, 170
170 articles appeared in m:ajor
people actually had internet
major U.S. publications
mentioning
the
internet,
:.IS compared to
to n
:IS
2Z articles in the same
5;lime period a
bons
me
year before." He cominued,
continued,
attention i.
is Barrering
Aattering ro those o(
have been prtdyri:cing
pro.sdyri~ing this
All this ..tttnrion
of UI
us who m\'C
rechnol<>&) for }'Cars.
years. The
TIle problem is
i, that I don't see any logieal
logical rcuon
re.uon for
(or the CUrCur
rechnology
rent
uound and
1nd gro"'ing
growing (or
dccade.
rem :mention.
attennan. The Internet
Inrema h1'
has been around
for more dun
lhan a decade.
Sure, it's
it', big (almost 1 million interconnected computers
compurers world wide) and growing
Sure.
fast
quire a while
f1St (more than 7% a 1l1omh),
momh). but it',
it's been big and growing fast for quite
Ir was certainly
lust at this rate when Time 6:
now. It
ren:ainly growing at least
/I( Newsweek were
iMrud of i"rernarionaI
international on-line.
on-line,
forecasting national video parlors for the kiddie'
kiddies instead
real time, intet:lcnve
imeractive current
currem aff.urI
afF.Iirs in the school,....
schook ... LaJt
LaST month, I even found an
anicle
rhe Internet in an airline Right
Aight magJ:dne."
utide on the
maga~ine."
/29
129

The Moment of
Wirr</
ofWirrJ

As the excitement around

2round the interner gathered in the media, as Wirt'd
Wind and
mmed computer
nerworking
in
bre2thless
cOllmerculrural
John Perry Barlow fr:!med
compurer networking
breathless countercultural
terms. as Mos:!ic
Mosaic circulan:d
circulared ontO
OntO the increasing number of internet-connected
terms,
beg;m to rake
take note.
nore. In parr,
part, with thcir
LANs, members of the business world began
their
the information superhigh_
dirccted towards networking
nctworking by me
attention already din:cred
way thetotic,
ul15l1rprising that those looking for business opportuOppOrTUrhetoric, it might be unsurprising
might follow the medi:!
media towards the internet. But another key factOr
faCTor was
nities mighr
played a dual role. On the one hand, Microsofr's
Microsoft's
the Microsoft monopoly, which pl:ayed
systems represented the uninspiring end of the garage
dominance in operating
opernting sysrems
rom2ntic entrepreneurs to
Start-Up days in microcomputing.. thus motivating romantic
start-up
orher. it was weU
well known that
rh2t Bill Gares
Gates had
look for something new. On the other,
richeSt men in the
rhe world and
2nd thar
rh2r those who had heavily
just become one of the richest
1980s were beginning to reap fabulous rewards.
invested in Microsoft in the
rhe late 1980S
invested.
Microsofr was
thus borh
both:la reviled.
reviled corporate monolith and an object
objecr lesson: might
wa.s rhus
Microsoft
Microsoft juSt
Micro.soft had overthrown
oven:hrown lBM~
IBM! Might
just as Microsoft
something overthrow Microsofr
h:lve to do with rhe
the internetf
internet! And might
lnight mere
there be similar
similu rewards
th:lt
thar something have
ne.xt best rhing
thing would be:
be~
to be re2ped
reaped by those who acc\lratdy
guessed what
wh:lt me
the nar
accurately guessed.
Netsc:lpc:. Jim Clark, student of Lynn
Lynu Conway :lnd
Enter NetSC2pe.
and founder of graphics workstation company Silicon Graphics (SGI), wa.s
was by that time an aecuti\'C
t.xecuri\e
filii of
who did not need to do his own word processing. Bur
But somime
sometime in the late f:lll
199J,just
as
the
internet
craze
and
Mosaic
were
entering
mainStream
attention,
1993, just
inlernet
emering mainstream
rechnology,
Clark stumbled upon Mosaic when, in search of a new direction in technology,
he was introduced ro
to the
rhe web browser by :In
ar SGI. CI2rk
Clark resigned
an underling 2t
Aew to rhe
the NCSA in Champaign-Urbana,
from SGI in February 1994, Hew
Ch2Jllp2.ign-Urb2ll2, Illinois,
co commercialize the program
found Marc AndrttSSen,
Andreessen, and founded 2a company to
h:l5[e, he launched
l:lUllched the Nersc2pe
Netscape 1IPO
in spring 1994....
1994.'0 With unprecedented haste,
PO just
later. This
-nlis became the
til(: most successfUIIPO
successfullPO in history to
ro th2t
that point
over 2a year bter.
and the model for many subsequent IPOs.
IPOs, sening
setting off the inrernet
internet stock
srock craze.
2nd
-Inc
largest
p:lT[y
that
capitalism
has
ever
tbrown
had
begun.
The largcsr parry
thrown
this swooning
attl:ntion~ In part, Nets<:2pe
Netscape grabbed
Neueape ger
get all mis
So why did NetSC2pe
swooninganenrion:
because ofJim
ofJilll Clark's pre\'iprevibeadlines beause
because it was in Silicon Valley, in part beo.use
the headlines
poltt because
bccause Netscape
Neucape hired Andreessen and
track record with SG.I,
;lIld in part
SGI, 2nd
ous rrack
Neuc:lpe's first
hrst browser
many of the other original programmers of Mosaic. And Netscape's
huvily inro
into rapirs Start-up
start-up funds heavily
was a good one, particularly as it channeled its
relusing frequent free updates over the internet and
idly improving the progranl,
program, releasing
thar
it needs to be remembered th~r
quickly becoming the most popular browser. Yet ir
PO
the
company
had
no
prOht
and
almost
110
revenues.
If
at the time of the 1
IPO rhe
profit
no
Ir
was giving its
itS principle product away for free and had no crucial patentS
p:ltents or other
advant:.lge in the browser m;lTket:
jUst one of abour ten
dramatic advantage
market: Netscape was just
to comn1ercialize
companies trying ro
commercialize Mosaic."
lJO
130

Wim/
The Moment of Wirt"d

To a very signihCant
Netscapc gained so much attention because it
significant degree, Netscape
of
cTeating
cemered on a
followed
a
deliberate
strategy
fOllowed
creating a media narrative heavily centered
romanticized, heroic construction
tbe computer counterculture, which proved
romanticized.
constru<:tion of the
with the media itself. Netscape
Nerscape depicted itself as enchanting. Very
very popular wim
to presprcsearly on, Clark hired a publicist, Rosanne Siino from SGI, and told her to
strategy
ent Andreessen as the rock star of the company." Siino then developed a srrategy
rhat carefUlly
carefully cultivated media attention framed
ftamed in terms of geek chic, deliberthat
progr:lminro the back rooms to show
sho\\l the chaos of the programreponers into
ately taking reporters
forth." And she
mers' cubicles, programmers sleeping under their desks.
desks, and so fonh."
men'
successfully turned Andreessen into a celebrity; in 1995, Andreessen appeared on
Forbes ASAP with the blurb: Ihis
"TIl is Kid Can Topple Bill Gates.""
the cover of FOrbe5
Gates...
Peuplt magazine
m:l.gazine and appear on me
the cover
featured in People
Andreessen would soon be fe2tured
feet."
of Time in his bare feet."
Wittd magazine. Wired
Arguably; none of this would have worked without WiJl"d
Arguably,
Andreesscn, and in that year it
was bardy
barely more than a year old when Clark hired Andreessen.
had been full of adolescent hyperbole (Rossetto claimed that computer technol~social changes so profound their only parallel is probably me
the
ogy was creating social
M
discovery of fire1,"
hre ),'" and inaccurate predictions (besides mentioning the internet
the first issue, the second implied that Richard Stallman's Free
only in passing in me
outmoded and doomed)!'
doomed)." And its ere-catching
eye-catching Day-Glo
Software project was ounnoded
graphics and layout were sometimes unreadable. Wired
Wire,l did nor,
not, fUrthermore.
furlhermorc,
that Mosaic was me
the killer app of tbe
imernet."
the internet.'invent the idea mat
Bm it populamed
popularized the idea
idc.a and did so in a particular
particub.r way. Wired
Wiml published its
irs
But
in October
Ocrober 1994, when the web
first substantial piece on the Mosaic phenomenon ill
internet aficionados butJUSt beginning to annct
attract the anention
attention
was well known to interner
"TIle (Second Phase of me)
the) Revolution Has Begun;
Begun,"
of the wider world." Tided
Titled Ihe
the article, by Gary Wolf.
Wolf, didn't just target
tatget a good im'esrment
invcstment or new technology
me
as a normal trade magazine piece might have. Instead, it used colloquial language
and emphasized revolutionary change,
pleasurc, and pcrsonal
cxpression."When
When
change. pleasure.
personal apression.
nOt the most
mosr
it comes to
to smashing a paradigm;
paradigm;' the article beg;an,
began, pleasure
"pleasure is not
thing.~ In a section ritled,
titled, "Why II Dig Mosaic,"
Mosaic,"
important thing. It is the only thing."
that "Mosaic functions lurchingly.
lurchingly, with many gasps and wheezes;
wheezes,"
Wolf observed matMosaic
of
setting
olf
to
find
technical
information
on the
and
described
an
e.xperience
<1nd
experience
off to
technial
ro link.
link,
nascent web and getting distracted by the process of clicking from link to
eventually ending up on a physicist's personal page. But while a st:lndard
standard review
ofcomputer
problcms, Wolf
\Volf did nor.
nor.-111e
wholc
of
computer software might point to these as problems.
"The whole
experience,~
Wolf
wrote,
Mgave
an
intense
illusion,
not
of
information,
bur
of
per"gave
illusion.
but
experience."'
to be JUSt office
sonality." Now that personal computers had revealed themselves to
thac personal, Wolf was loc:ning
loc:lting personality in the
machines and therefore not all that
surhng.
aCt of web surfing.
IJI
IJI

Wired
The Moment of Wirrd

:u if to give substance
subsunce to the rather thin idea of the personality of the
And, :IS
AnOther
ctafts all
an image of the personality of Mark Andreessen. Another
web, Wolf crafts
journalisr might have interviewed
inrerviewed the senior partner of the company, but Wolf
journalist
"A
rhe twenty-something junior partner and notes personal details. ''A
focused on the
interview," Wolf notes,
nores, MAndreessen
"Andreessen removes his dress shin
little way into the interview,~
T-shirr. This
-nlis gesmre leaves the
and answers the rest of my questions in a white T-shirt.
the businesslike backdrop" ofNetscape's
of Netscape's
battle against the
impression of a man doing hattie
011 Andreessen's dragon-slaying attitude;
auicude: workheadquarters. And Wolf focuses on
he.adqu:lners.
ing for Netscape, Wolf notes,
''offers (AndreessenJ
[Andreessen] a chance to keep him free from
notes,Moffers
darkness-Microsoft."
comp:lny he sees as one of the forces of darlmess-Microsoft.'"
the grip of:l company
2:eroing in on Netsope
Netscape and Andreessen,
AndreeS$en, this Wired profile, not only .ampli:lrnpliBy zeroing
MOJjlic was rhe
rile kiUer
killer app of the internet and thar
thM Ner.scape
NetscaP<'
fied the belief that Mosair
would be irs
its primary beneficiary, bur
but also offered a romantic
rom:lntic lens rhrough
through which
'vVhite House and Congress took the
to see the phenomenon. As the Clinton \\'hite
information superhighway rhecoric
rhetoric off inco
into dry comminees,
eomminees, spouting inside-theinfonn:l.tion
beltway :acronyms,
increasingly be seen thumbing through
beltwllY
acronyms, businessmen could increllSingly
\Vircd on airplanes, and terms like cy~npau
'ybcrJpn(t and frontier met2phors
metaphors
copies of Wired
beg:m cropping up in newspaper articles
artide.~ and politicians'
politicians" sound bites_
bitcs. Without
Withom
beg.an
\Virt'd, it's nOt
not obviow
obvious that this liberrarian-Ravored
libenarian-Ravorcd counu:rculcun!
counterculmral framing of
Wirtd,
computer networking would have taken
m:ainstream.
computtr
r:tken hold in the mainstre.am.
t:lke hold it did. Being p.ut
parr of the knowlyears, as we all know, r:tke
In the ensuing yea.rs,
was a centra!
central p.art
patt of the ethos at the rime.
time. Mary Meeker, who
edgeable vangullTd
vanguard was.a
edgea.ble
bubble;' was a stock analyst lit
at Morgan Standubbed "the girl in the bubble;
later would be dubbed"the
player in the Netscape
NetScape IPO
11'0 and many subsequent dot com (PQs.
lPOs.
ley and key pla)'er
"I remember rhat in 1995 II would speak with Marc Andrees.sc:n
Andreessen and .....e
we
She said, -I
to count up how rn.any
many people undersrood
understood this stuff.
We thought it was
scuff: We
would try ro
about four hundred.~'"
hundred:'''' Soon after rhe
the Netsc:ape
Netscape IPO,
lPG, a ),oung
young visionary ailed
called
Jeffrey SkiUing
Skilling began leading a rising corporation called Enron
Enton into new terricot}'
terrirory
Jeffre),
internet-related activities; of skepspeculative trading of energy :md
based on the spcculllrive
and internet-rdated
"there were
to have scoffed, Rossetto-like, -there
tics of his strategy, Skilling is reported to
tWO kinds of people in rhe
dle world: those who got
gOt it and
3.lId those who didn't.MI'
didn't."" And
twO
lhe summer of 1994,
1994. conservative pundit George
left its mark in politics; in the
it leff
3.nd others to release a rousing
teamed up with futurologist Alvin Toffier
ToRler and
Gilder reamed
~Cyberspace and the
tile American Dream:
Dre3.m: A Magna Carra
Carta for the
documem called "Cyberspace
document
Age~; the document declared a new era in which free markets
matkets 3.nd
and
Knowledge Age":
technology
governmentS obsolete, a set of themes that would soon
nuke governments
rechnology would make
Gingrich,
up by then-Congressman Newt Gingrich.
be picked op
to scoff at these patterns
parterns with a smug"
smug"1I wid
told
After a point, it docs little good to
}'OU so:
stock prices of the late 1990S were
wete
you
so." Many thoughtful observers knew the srock
ellenl said so. The evidence and argumentS
arguments were there,
irrational. and many of them
irrational,
13l
13Z

111C
MomClIt of Wirtd
Wirrll
The Momenr

but the bubble kept expanding nonetheless. It is worth ferreting out

our those who
ro engage in various degrees of outright
took
rook advantage of the heady atmosphere to
fraud.
atmosphere itself only on occasional
occuional
rraud. But one cannot blame the heady atmosphete
reporting, conRiets
confliers of interest, or dishonesty.
instances of exaggerated reporting.
This overheated atmosphere was precisdy
precisely a fusion of the desire for wealth
and the dramatic overthrow
with romantic dreams of freedom, self-expression, :lnd
the powers that be. Without the romantic visions of freedom and revolution,
revolution.
of me
there
about; there was no gold in mis
this
rhere would have been nothing to get excited about:
just castles in the air made of projections
gold rush, no valuable raw material, JUSt
seem valuonto immaterial digital bits; something had to make those projections sa:m
hope of getting rich, the enthusiasm would never ha\'e
have had
able. Yet without the hope.
:able.
ro spread. Change the world,
world. overrhrow
overthrow hierarchy, express
the energy it needed to
and get rich; it was precisely the heady mix
mile of all of these hopes that had
yourself, lind
)'Ourself,
galvani2:ing effect.
effeer.
such a galvanizing

the Internet Surprise

The Role of Romanticism in [he
chat:lcter of Cipiralism
capiu.lism sometimes
sonletimes tends to be imagined
The development and character
germs, and Steel
c:ategory, things like technologies,
sted ategory,
in terms of things in the guns, genns,
assume, is about the
resources, and geography. Economic development, we like to :aSSl\lne.
arc produced and
fundamentals of human life are
efficiency with which the prosaic fundamentllis
have to eat or how long
things rhat
that change how much we hllve
distributed or about rhings
thinking, for all its insight, can mne
make us forget jwt
JUSt how
we live. Yet this way of thinking.
che development of Cipitalism
capitalism has been at times. Think of me
the role of
frivolous the
tea, tobacco, and beaver pelts in the development of mercantile sysgold, spices, tea.,
Atneric:!S. These
-nlese
[he European coloni2:arion
colonization of the Americas.
tems and the early phases of the
practical value, whose populariry
popularity largel),
largely
rrivi:a.l commodities, of no major pracrical
were all rrivi:al
reRected
reAecred the whims of European upper-class fashion. Yet the
rhe basic systemS
systems of
capitalistn, some
sonIC
accounting and trade that laid the foundations for early modern capit:a.lism,
itself, were created around them.
would say for capitalism and the world system irself,
The internet of the 1990S may have been less like the steam engine or the radio
'vVhar the internet offered.
offered, however, was
and more like spices and beaver pelts. %ar
nOt
dothnor so much fashions for decorating
deconting our bodies or our food as fashions for clothing the self.
years. between 1992 and 1996, the internet went from being
In a few shorr years,
globa.1 institurion
institution whose name seemed to
to be on everya quiet experiment to a global
By 1995,
one's lips and whose eldsrence
existence and importance
rnken for granted.
granted, By
One's
impormnce was taken
remaining consumer computer communication systems from
froln the 1980S
19805 like
the temaining
meallS of access to
as means
to the
Compuserve and Prodigy were all selling themselves :IS
Struc
way around, the Congress was re\'ising
revising the Strucinternet rather than the other W;ly
133

lh~ Moment
MOtllcnt of \Viml
\Virr<l
The

fUre
communic:ltions law for the first rime
ture of itS
its communications
time in more than half a cenruq',
Century,
major corporations from the phone companies to Microsoft to the television networks were radically revamping core strategies, television ads for Coke and Pepsi
routinely displayed URLs, and me
the stock bubble was underway.
In the history of media, this is an ext:raordinarily
extraordiuarily rapid shift. In comparison,
most other
ocher media suggcSt
suggest something well coordinated and
the early histories of mosr
in the United
oudincs of the
uample, the general outlines
rhe TV industry
indusrry in,
planned. For tKample,
States-the
the :ldvcrrising
Stares-the major corporate pbyen,
players, me
advertising sysrem,
system, nerworks provid_
providevcn
much
of
rhe
programming
like
soap
ing programming to affiliate srarions,
stations, even
shows-were clearly mapped OUt
operas and variety shows-we~
our by the mid- to late-1930s,
opcras
more than a decade before its full-scalc
li.ill-scale inttoduction
introduction around 1950. (RCA/NBC
made television a central
cenrral parr
part of irs plans for the
me future by 19J2,just
1932, just as the networked/advertising-supported
r;ldio
broadcast
system
was
becoming consoliworkedladllertising-supported radio
datcd.)~
and struggles associated with their development,
dated.)" For all the complexities :lnd
film, television, and VCRs .....ere
were dissetninated
disseminated in a comext
conten in which industry
industl')' leadgenet;ll
ers, governmenr
sha~d similar broad general
government regubtors,
regulators, :lnd
and manufacturers
manufacrurers all shared
of
what
the
new
industrits
were
going
to
be
about,
and
disputes
were
outlines
industries .....ere
oudines
limited to fine poims
points of technical
tC(:hnicaJ standards
standatds (for example, Betamax
Beumax versus VHS),
videotape copyright issues), and the
rile
revenue distribution (for example, able
cable and videotapc
:It hyperbolic claims abour
a~ correct [0
to scoff at
about the
like. His[Orians
Historians of technology are
rhe book).
book),
interner (for example, that the internet
interner is the biggest invention since the
internet
its striking features
But one of irs
fearures is JUSt
jUst how much, for a period
pcriod in rhe
the 19905,
1990S, it took
only communiGition
communication system of the rwentieth
twentieth
people by surprise.
surprise, Arguably, the onJy
cenrnry th:n
that came with similar unexpectedness was radio broadcasting (whic.h
(which
century
1920S).ll
also played a significant role in that
mat other stock bubble in the 19:20s),"
Many might .uk:
dIe imernet
internet triumph because it offe~d
offered new effiask: Did not rhe
ciencies, new flexibilitics,
flexibiliries, and a new ease of access
aec<:ss to infonnation
information and knowledge
crearion,
rile driving force of rhe
the internet itself
iuelf and its
creation, which together were really the
contribution
m~rker dynamism, globalization, and
~nd the A~ttening
f1:mening of
comribution to the new market
economic relations?
rhar much money :lnd
efforr re~lIy
~lationsl' Could that
and effort
teally be driven by someephemer:ll and irrational as a p:lrticular
romantic self-conceptf
self-contept?
rhing
thing as ephemeral
particular kind of romamic
Other facrors
F.iCtors m:mered,
mattered, of course.
course, Bur
But it seems likely thar
that the romantic entrepreneurial self-concept
seif-coilCept was a necessary if not sufficient component of the internet
events, Everydling
Everything
ner explosion of the 1990S. It helps to remember the order of events.
illdividuals were successfully making a
changed INfon
bifore significant numbers of individuals
profit selling vi~
via the internet ~nd
and even before internet access W:lS
was widely available.
It was nor
not as if people started using the internet to make monty
money :tnd
and then the
rhe
appreci:lble non
metabusiness world :It
lIIas no appreciable
nonmetaat large responded; in 1995, there WOJ
phorical marker
yer, no substantial popui:ltion
population of individu~ls
individuals competitively buymarket yet,
ing and selling things over the interner.
internet, TIlere
There were, by and large, only experiexpeti134
1)4

The Moment of
W"'l'd
ofWi~d

menters,
~nd enthusiasts, people who expected
expecttd a market (0
mentetS, speculators, and
to emerge
where one did nor
not yet exist. (Yes, there were those graphs showing skyrocketing
numbers of internet nodes and users, forming almost perfect triangles as the lines
tines
headed for the uppcr
upper right comer.
corner. Bur
But one could produce similar graphs for the
sales of the
me latest new pop rock sensation, and the internet had been growing at a
rechnology, the internet
similar rate long before 1993.) Understood as a practical technology,
because the interner
could not have caused these changes because:
internet was not practical yet.
set the suge
the explosion of the:
the
Many of the more important changes that .set
stage for rhe
technology itself
internet and rhe
the interner economy, then, h~ppened
happcned btfort
hefOTt the rechnology
had a chance ro
ar all.
to have much concrete
concrere effect at
The fact is, the
rhar appeared in the 1993-95 pcriod
period wasn'tJUSt
wasn't just a techme internet
interner that
nology; it was the enactment
enacrmenr of a hope. The changes of 1993-95 were vety
very much
ollriciJ'<ltory, changes based on what people imagined
illlClgilml (auld
hllpptll, not what
whar had
anticipatory,
rOllld hoppen,
already happened.
happened, In the early 1990S, the internet did not so much cause new
[0 inspire people to imngi"r
thar new things would
things to happen as it served to
imagine that
.....ould
elldless what's
happen. The shared embodied experience of an immersion in :In
an endless
ncxt?
Mowc unleashed, coupled to the enonnous awe accorded new technen~ that Mosaic
nology and the opportunity ro
to step into the role of the
rhe romantic entrepreneur,
ofsignificam
segmenrs
enabled new behal'iors
on
the
parr
beha\'iors
part ofsignificant segments of the population. PeobeCOluse the internet
imernet enabled them to
ple behaved differendy,
differently, nor
not just bau.se
ro do differem things, bue
because irs
its presence inspired people to imagine how things might
but bause
ent
transformed. Many of the things said and done in
change, how things mighr be transfonned,
rhe
name
of
ehe
imernet
in
the
1990S we now know to be misjudgments, some of
the internet
the
rhem
nor random. They
TIley were
mem colossal ones; rhose
those misjudgments, however, were not
and that
chat vision had an impact even if
parr
pan: of a pattern of shared collective vision, lind
it was based on some shaky foundations.
ofNeoliberalism
The Internet and the Revival of
Neoliberalism
That impact, moreover, was nor
not fleering. TIle
The internet
internel enthusiasm was nor just
jusr a
away
in
lost
fortunes.
On
Tulip mania, a medioc~
mediocre idea that
thar evenruaJly
washed
eventually
one hand, the internet bubble unleashed
Rood of money into the telecomthe onc
unleashed:la flood
muniCOItions infrastructure,
infrastrucrure, effectively making TCP/I
P the standard
st:lndard for the foreTCP/IP
munications
IUrure and resulting in a build-out
build-our of high-bandwidth
seeable future
high-bandwidrh lines that remained
mer the bubble bursr,
burst. On the other hand, less concretely but
bur
important ellen
e\'en after
perhaps more profoundly, rhe
the inrernet
imernet surprise helped revived neoliber:tlism.
neoliberalism.
As we have noted, neoliberalism looked like it might be in serious decline at the
1992.; both corporate leadership and government
time of Bill Climon's election in 1992;
poinr of view involving
were mOiling
moving back towards a more classic corpot:olte
corporate liberal poim
coordinared
berween the collapse of
coordinated privare/public
private/public partnerships. But somewhere between
135

Momenr of \Vired
Wired
The Momc:nrof

."

the Soviet Union and the internet bubble, rhe blind faith in markets was given
new energy. The internet, because it took the establishment by surprise, because
it occasioned a conAuence of the counterculture with spectacularly speculative
capitalism, created an opening for big ideas.
Given the polidcal alignments of the early 1990S, the first intellectual bloc to
jump into that opening were the libertarians, and they successfully fostered an
equation of the romantic individualisr vision of the internet with a free market
vision of the internet. Esther Dyson-a business consultant with a background
in journalism, 2 door-opening 12st name, and libert2rian leanings (she told Re-aSOlt magazine th2t wh2t she likes about the m2rket economy is "number one, that
it works. Number twO, th2t it's morall l4 -noticed the emerging internet as an
opportunity and made it the core of her career. Republican speech writer George
Gilder, previously famous for books atTacking feminism 2nd welfare, turned to
technology with a book on the end of television in 1990; the book proved not to be
all that accurate in irs predictions but irs enthusiastic reprion at the time caught
Gilder the power of technological prognostication as 2 route to an audience. libertarian journalist Decbn McCullough Started m online website devoted to the
interner and politics in 1994 and soon became a reguw contributot to Wire-d.
This group was able to uke the framework laid our by de Sola Pool's Tuhllologies
oj FrteMm, in which free markers are equated with free: speech and government
regulation is consftUed as the enemy of both, md apply it to the exploding activity around the internet.
To 5 how this feat of rhetorical associ:t.rion worked, consider 2 1995 CSS2y
about the inrernet in 1ht Erollomist. Author (md eventuallr, Win-d editor) Christopher Anderson .....rote, the Internet re....olution has challenged the cotpOr.ltetit2n model of the information superhigh.....ay. The growth of the Ner is not a
Auke or 2 fad, but the consequence of unleashing the power of individual cre2ti,,
ity. If it were 2n economy, it .....ould be rhe rriumph of the free marker over central
pl2nning. In music, jazz over Bach. Democracy over dictatorship... This vision
of individual creativity unleashed (and the associated rhetorical flourishes) .....as
orthodox rom2ntic individualism. But this was in TI)( Ecollomin, nor \-Virtd, and
what readers of the magazine first sa..... when they opened the issue added a tell
ing twist. A nameless editor at 11,e Economist compressed Anderson's romantic
passage into a pull quore rhat graced the first page of the printed version of the
aniele: "The explosive growth of the interner is not just a fad or a Auke, but the
result of a digital free market unleashed.~16 Readers of 11,e Erollomist were subtll'
invited to leap from "if it were an economy" to it is a "digital free market:' -nlis
associative leap from market metaphor to actual market, repeated over and over
again in the culture ar rhe time, allo.....ed a technological system based on nonproprietary standards and with roots in a mix of private and government funding ro
Jj6

11le MOlllent

of Wirta

become a powerful archetype of both the free market and free expression in rhe
broad public mind, The iconoclastic rhyduns by which the internet appeared in
the cubicles ofAmerica were thus harnessed to a Lockean market projection. The
illogical leaps inherent in all this were swept aside by the speed of events and by
the const.J.nt threat of being labeled as a dinOS:lur by Wired-style coumercultural
rhetoric.
These events, occurring in the wake of the astonishing collapse of the Soviet
Union and the quick rriumph of the United Stares ill the 1991 Persian Gulf war,
created a COntext in which neolibet:llism was given new life. In law, politics, and
business management, most of the talk of industrial policy and relared corporate
liberal terms disappeared into the background, and the faith in markets as the
source of all innovation (and of freedom itself) was revived as forcefully as ever.
In 1994, just as Netscape was plotting its IPO, [he Nell' York Times rr.lnsferred
a Middle East foreign correspondent named Thomas Friedm2n to covering the
\\'hite House md economio. The following year, as the stock. bubble began irs
climb, Friedman became a regular op-ed writer, and he cultivated an avuncular,
anecdor:zJly driven, free: market fund.1.mentalism thu O\'er time he coupled to a
subtle nationalist rriumphalism. In the :ace of all this, those who initially raised
doubts abour specific neoliberal decisions, such as economist Jeffrey Sachs's belief
in shock therapy for the former Sovier Union to drive it into a market economy-with. resulrs that even Sachs admits were mixed, and many would argue
wete disastrous-were largely rendered mute throughout the 19905, (:Owed by
the app.arenr irrefutability of the market vision, buored as it was by me Rood of
events, the energy around the internet, and the associared mereoric rise of the
srock markets. Thanks to me way the internet was embraced by the culture, Margaret Thatcher's 1980s cLaim that there is no :alternative (0 neoliberalism on me
world stage was given new life.

137

The Momenr of Wired

Open Source, the Expressive Programmer, and

the Ptoblem of Ptopetty
Every good work of sofrware srarrs by scr,m:hing a developer's personal itch.
~Eric Raymond'

W HAT 1T WO U L D take to finally put some cracks in the foundation

of the neoJiber:lJ consensus, it rums out, was rhe same thing that gave it renewed
)ife in the early 1990S: romantic individualist representations of computing.
Long before the spread of the itlternet, even before the appearance of microcomputets, Ted Nelson, in Computa Lib. briefly reRected on the problem of
funding his sysrem of hyperlinked digital texts he called Xanadu:
Can ir be done' I dunno.... Mr assumption is that the way W this is not through
big business (since all these corporadons see is orher corporations): nor rhrouglJ
governmenr (hyperrexr is nor commirree-oricnted. bl.lt individl.lalistic-and grants
can only be gotten rhrough sesquipedalian and obfuscarory pompizzazz); bur
through the b)'Ways of the priv:ue enterprise sysrem. I rhink the same spirit that
gave us McDonald's and k:mdy kolor hor rod accessories may pull us rhrough
htte.'
Though little noted at the time, Ted Nelson thus imagined an entrepreneurial
form for his digital utopia, in some ways anticipating the neoliberal framing of
computing (discussed in chapter 3) that appeared a decade later.
Bur Nelson was nOt proposing simply a market for J kind of machine in a
box, like the microcomputer. As we've seen, the microcomputer could be easily imagined as a discrete object one buys and sells. How was one to implement
something entrepreneurial, a farmer's-market-like syStem of exchange, our of the
vast gossamer web of social and technical links and protocols that is an advanced
computer network:'
Nelson had an answer. He insistcd that Xanadu, while offering a world of
hyperlinked texts, also "must guarantee that the owner of any information will be
paid their chosen royalties on any portions of their documents, no matter how
small, whenever they are most used:" Whyf "You publish somerhing. anyone can
lise it, you always get a royalty automatically. Fair:" And he argues that this economic fairness, moreover, is of a piece with intellectual fairness: "You c:tn create
new published documents OUt of old ones indefinitely; making whatever changes

'3 8

seem appropriate-without damaging the originals. This means a whole new pluralistic publishing form. If anything which is already published can be included
in anything newly published. any new viewpoint .can be faitly ptesented:" Nelson
is not JUSt a believer in digital property; he hopes that digitalization can p~rfe((
ptopeny.
This chaptet explores the emergence. in the second half of the 1990S, of what
can be called the problem of property 011 the internet. This was the period when
Linux, the open source movement, and music downloading raised both excitenlent and consternation in many legal and management circles. By pitting free
communication against property rights, these developments called into question
the premises of the market fundamentalism that had been driving most political
economic thinking associated with the internet to that point. AU of a sudden,
freedom and the market were no longet synonymous and, in fact. seemed like
they might, in some cases, be opposed.
The argument of this chapter is that the internet did not JUSt create 'lew problems for intellectual property. It broughr slumbering dilemmas with property
in genetal to the surface. In the first instance, this resurfacing of the problem of
propeny was enabled, not by a critique of property per se, but by the tensions
between tomamic and utilitarian constructions of the individual. The desires to
make a profit and express onesel which as we have seen had been cOllflated in
the early 1990S. suddenly came to point in divergent directions.
"Clean Arrangements": The Dream of Property Rights
Much of the appeal of Ted Nelsoll's attachment to intellectual property was that
it is embedded in a moral vision, not just a dry business model or an economic
theory. Nelson, in Computer Lib, was clearly not just cooking up a jusrification for
something that would help him get rich. Nelson saw intellectual ptoperty protection as of a piece with his idea of freedom. He imagined the computer user as an
aUtonomous, free individual who communicates without the mediation of publishers. libraries, or educational institutions_ Digitally enabled intellectual property proteetion, he believed, would empower that kind of individualism.
Someone like IUchard Stallman might argue that such proprietary computing introduces constraints, barriers, and lawyerly and managerial meddling. NelSon's response is this: ''I've heard ... arguments, like 'Copyright means getting
the lawyers involved: TItis has it approximately backwatds. TIle law is ALWAYS
involved; it is CLEAN ARRANGEMENTS of law that keep the lawyers
away.... If the rights arc clear and cxaet, they arc less likely to get stepped on, and
it takes less to straighten matters OUt if they are. Believe it or not. lawyers LIKE
dean arrangements. 'Hard cases make bad law; goes the saying:'" This is precisely
139

Open Source, the Expressive Programmer. :md the Problem of Property

where Nelson combines computers wirh

with Lockean liberalism:
liberalism; the machines, widl
with
~dean :l.rrangemenu"
arrnngcments~
their enormous capacity
c:lp:lciry for fine
nne c:l.lcularion,
calculation, will provide the "dean
mar enable
property relarions.
rdations" With X:madu.
Xanadu, according to Nelsoll,
that
en:l.ble friction-free
friction-fru propetty
Nelson,
e:lch
individu:ll
contribution
to
the
system
would
be
perfectly
preserved
and
per_
e.:lch individual contributiOn
perfealy
perfectly rewarded; the computer system
syMem itself is supposed to
ro prevent the possibility
possibiliry
fealy
un:lr[fibuted eheft
theft of ideas because each Mquot.:lrion"quotarion" is preserved by
by;l.lI
ullalter_
of unanribured
2n unaltetable link.
link that, not onl)'
only 2JJowS
2ble
aJlows te2ders
readers to inst:mdy
insmndy call up intellectual
intellettual sources,
soun:es. bue
bllt
direcr p2ymem
payment for each use.
also ensures direct
Nelson"s hope rh2t
that -dean
~clean arrangements"
(thar is, precisely defined property
Nelson's
arr:mgements" (eh2t
boundaries)
rootS in American tradition,
boumhries) provide the key to freedom has
h2S deep roots
nOt to
to mention a long imellectual
intellecmal pedigree. The triumvirate
triuffivir:lte righrs
rights of "life, libnot
erty, and property,~
erty.
property; made famous
f2mous by John Locke and Adam Smith
Smirh appeared in
v:lrious
various forms in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the
me Bill of
Rights.'
TIle phrase, it should be emphasized, putS
puts property
Righrs.' The
propetty rights
righrs on par wirh
with
the claim to fteedom
freedom itself
the prohibition against murder (the right to life) and ehe
ro be
(liberty). Like these
dlese other
orher primordial rights,
righrs, moreover, property was said to
Ilarural,
you had by virtue of being born. Early U.S. leadernatural, inherent, something
somerhing )'OU
ro property into the
rhe soul of American society,
ship thereby wrote the right to
societ)" long
before the
rhe polity setiously
seriollsly considered, say, universal suffrage.
Protecting that rigln
Prorecting
right to property, making sure that what's yours is yours and
wh:lt's
what's mine is mine, is nor
not JUSt a philosophical position. By mosr
most reckonings it
wotld. It is 2a powerful bit
bir
is fundamental
n.ll1damental to (he
the sense of justice in a capitalist world.
socioculrtlt:ll sense m3king
helps it seem natural
of sociocultural
m:lking that
thar hdps
narural and right for people to
things, even if this results in some people owning a lor
pursue the
me ownership of things.
lot
bw 2nd
and justice
jusrice is supmore than others. And it feeds into our sense of whar
what law
po~ed [0
to be in the
place. Fair, de:lr
clear rules-the rule of law,
posed
me first pl:!.ce.
I2w, not of men, as the
obtained by maintaining c1C2r
dear boundaries, boundaries between
saying goes-are
goe.s-2n: obuined
property, between individuals. Find the dar
clear lines, make
propetr}',
mal: sure no one is stepping
OWIl property
over mem
them and is yet free to do what they Want
wam within in their own
Rand, Ameria's
America's twentieth.century
twentieth-century pop
boundaries, and
boundaries.
2nd you have justice. As
~ Ayn Rand.
"Just as m:rn
man
philosopher of property righTS,
rights, had her fictional
fiaional hero John Galt say. -Just
withom his body, so no rightS
rights can exisr
translare
can't exist without
cxisr without the right to tr.l.nslate
righu inro
realit)', to
(0 work
resultS, which means: the
rhe
one's rights
into te2lity,
ro think,
think. [0
wotk and keep the results,
properry.... Property, in her view, is not jusr
technicality. The
right of property....
just some legal technic2lity.
right~to think,
think. to
ro work.~
work,~ is of a picce
piece with the right (0
"keep the
rhe results."
rightUto
to"keep
notJUSt
11lis
docs not
This view does
JUSt appeal to the already rich. By standard measmes,
measures, Nelson's career has been a checkered one on the margins of the same commercial
inlluenced
educarional computing communiries that have been so deeply in(luenced
and educational
thue's somerhing poignant about his vision; it's
by his ideas. With that in mind, there's
the vision of an outsider, never entirely secure or well-rewarded by institutions,
140

Open Source,
Source. the Expressive Programmer. :md
and the Problem of Property
Propeny

mose
who has never been treated all thar"fairly,"
rhat "fairly," who imagines a utopia in which those
Ullfair
unfair institutions are
arc supplanted altogether
altogemet by communities of free individuals
working at computer consoles. It's a utopia where
arc no arbitrary
arbirrary powers
whete there are
like a corporate monopoly or arbitrarily powerful authorities with careers built
builr
smug.. tenuu<!.
tenured journal editors can
on glad-handing or hot air; a utopia
uropia when:
where no smug.
prevent one's article from reaching
re:lching publication,
publication. and no short-sighted corporate
pn:\'em
cOSt cutting.
execurive can arbirra.rily
arbitrarily deep-six a beloved project on behalf of cost
executive
cuning. Nor
can
any
of
these
people
claim
an
underling's
idea
as
their
own.
Nelson
is proposca.n
cWm
ida
ro nuke
make real a very American ideal: a vision of a mathematically perfea
perfect proping to
nnally m:.lke
manifest -the
"the rule of law, not of
erty system, of crystalline rules that finally
mal: m:mifest
men"-enabled,
men--enabled, in this case, by computer technology.
As the internet triumphantly spread the h:.lbits
hypertext into
habits of Nelson's hypertcxr
American life in the mid-1990s,
mid-1990S, however, things would turn out
OUt to be 2nything
anything
prOperty.
but crystalline in the
rhe realm of property.

Mud: The Problem with Property

Crystals Turned to Mud;
A look at the history of Western law shows that it is not just new technologies that
laSt few centuries, the dream of
render property boundaries confusing. Over the last
~dear and exact" has proven to be elusive :Iocross
rights that are
are"dear
across many domains. Property relations themselves,
themselves. of course, have hardly been in eclipse; as capitalism
c2pitalism has
Inorc
expanded over me past few centuries, pressure to extend
e)(fend property relations [0
to more
aspecrs of life has grown unabated. With the important exception of slavery,
:aspectS
sbvery, almost
no category of things that has been turned
rumed into property has ever been turned back
property, though.
though, is thar,
cxpanded.
into nonproperty. The problem of property.
intO
that. as its scope expanded,
properl)' grew ever
and exaa."
exact." Property
the character
charaaer of property
e\'er muddier, ever less "clear
-de2r 2nd
have hardly been the cryStalline
practice, it rums out, h2ve
rights in practice.
crysuJIine system that Locke
ho~s Mr.
for. Gnawing 2way
away at
ar me
the entire idea of property.
property,
suggested and that
thar Nelson hopes
then, is a sense [hat
ad~'ertised might be impossible.
men,
thar making it work as ad\'Crtised.
caused by side effects like the unequal distribution
nor just the distortions c2used
It's not
me judicial and political systems keep finding reasons to blur
of wealth or that the
wvironmenta[
property boundaries with regu1:.ltory
regulatory efforts like :zoning
zoning laws and environmental
regulation. It is also thar crisply defined rights on paper appear much less than
crisp when one tries to map them OntO the
me real world of human activities. Even
archerypal forms of property-land-seems
properry-bnd-seems to nltll
turn up intracone of the most archetypal
table quandaries, quandaries which surfaced in legal cases going back to the nineptoperty
teenth cenniry.
Where. exactly, is the line where enjoyment
centll.ty. Whete,
enjoymem of one's own property
say. raising pigs muddies
Stops and interference with another's begins~ What if, say,
erecting a building casts
casrs :Ia sh:ldow
shadow on a neighbot's garthe neighbor's streams or ereCtillg
den?'
den?" Over
O\'er the
rhe years, the more tll:lot
that the finest legal minds applied themselves to
141

Open Souru,
Expressive Programmer, :md
and the
rhe Problem of Property
Sour'.., Ihe
rhe Expreuivc

these questions, the more possible answers there seemed to be, with the result
rime.
that the cue
case law in aggregare
aggregate seemed to grow ad hoc and murky over time.
$0, as the twentieth century progressed, the
me more aspects
property
aspecrs of life that propeny
So,
to the less sense those relations seemed to make. People
relations were applied
apptied [0
e\"E:r less like the prophave been buying and selling things that look and behave ever
Locke
had
in
mind.
In
the
rwentieth
century,
licenses
to drive a taxi
erty thar
that
twentieth
radio frcquency
frequency were
wen
in New York City or licenses to broadcast on a particular nadio
not things at
all; they
bought and sold for huge sums, but these things were teally
really nOt
at:all;
created by the actions of various
were something quite obviously defined and Cre:lted
law
in
fact
states
that a license to broadcast allows
government agencies.agencies."' (U.S.
(US.
faa
~thc use of such channels, but not the ownership thereol.)"
thereof.")" Ownerthe holder Wthe
not grant
ship of a stock does nOt
gr:lnt one anything physical; having five percent of the
to walk off
percenr of
stock in a company does nOt grant one the right to
ofT with five percent
the factory.
Stocks,
on
dose
inspection,
appear
less
like
property
and
more like
faCtof)'. Stocb,
shifting set of entitlements even as they have become a core form
and shifi:ing
fonn of
an odd :md
property ownership in the capitalist system.
f.11110US review of historical variations in American legal approaches to
A f.amous
property distinguished between crystals and mud, between legal decision making
based on finn,
firm, bright-line rules and blurrier and flexible
Rexible standards." While there
fonh between crystalline and muddy
has been a certain amount of back and fom
interpretations
meorist William Fisher has pointed out that
thar the
incerpretatioM of the law, legal theorist
dominant trend for at least the twentieth century has been towards mud." The
record, in sum,
sum. would suggesr
suggest that crisply defined laws on paper may
historical record.
nOt be capable of producing a crisply defined system ofjustice in reality; they are
nor
only.
crisp on paper only,
anricipated aspects of this problem nearly
Some philosophers anticipated
neOlrty from the beginning.. noting thOlt
that the idea of a nattlral
natural right is a frail one. Jeremy Bentham, for
ning.
ro theorists of natural rights, acerbically
observed,
acerbicallyobservc:d.
example, when responding to
reason aWs
uisrl for wishing that
rlu.r th.....
rhere were
$uch thing$
Bur rusons
w... c .uch
things as
ali rights.
righn. BUT
reuom
A te:lSOn
therc werc
~re not
rights.. ... N~IIlr:d
for wishing [here
\\I... e such things:lS
rnings as righu. Me
not righn.
Naron! rightl;.
righu is
limple nonscnsc;
n~lural and
~nd imprescripnble
imprcM:ripnbk rightS,
rights. rhetorical
nonsensc-nonsimple
nonsrnse: narun!
rhetoric;U noru.enw-nonscnsc upon slill.....
sense
nilu."
Bentham's
point was thar
exisr when a gO\'ernmenr
government takes action ro
fO
rhar rights only exist
Benrham's poinr
withour the hand of some government
gOI'emment body determining whar
what
make them exist; without
form they should take, and how they should he
be enforced,
rights should exist, what fonn
government
there is nothing. Rights
cannm be the ultimate protection
protcction against go\'crnmem
Righrs cannot
[II the
action against individuals simply because
bccause they are
tIrt' government action. In
run, this line of reasoning would suggest, rights are indistinguishable from
long tun,
govemment privilege. Pro
petry is not
nOt a right that protectS
protects us from government.
govemmcnt.
Property
a government
Property
are 01a {wllion
creafioN of government.
govemment.
Properry rights, like other rights, it would seem, OIre
142
/42

Open
~n Source.
Sourcc, the Ellprusive
Expressive Programmer,
Progr.lmmet, and the
rhe Problem of Property
Prop<:rry

utilirarianism. Rights are

Bentham's response to this problem was to
to invent utilitarianism.
not natura!'
natural, but human self-interest is, he surmised, and the pursuit of self-interest can and should be organi%ed
to maximi%e
org;ani:zed to
maximize the happiness of the most
mOSt individuturn b.id
laid the foundation
found:ation for tod:ay's
norion in tum
roday's overlapping tr:aditions
rraditions of
als. This notion
Ileoclassical
theory and has seeped into popular
neoclassical economics and rational choice meory
consciousness in myriad ways, such as the COntemporary
comemporary habit of using tenns
like illWJliviu.
at won:.
work when, in 1976.
'976, the twenty-year-old
tweney-year-old Bill
inctnriviu. This was the logic at
complained to me
the Homebrew CompUter
Computer Club about members
Gates famously compla.ined
th:at wu
freely shared the Basic software mat
who fredy
was his company's first product; doing
so, Gates griped, would make it impossible for him or others to keep writing
more software."
software." In contrasr
conrrast to Ted Nelson, Gates talked,
ta.l.ked, not
nOt of faimess,
fairness, but of
incentives
Sohware should
be protected because free copying
incemives to make sofTware.
software.. Software
mould lx:
creation of more SOftwOlre.
software,
would discourage the crearion
But
Bur Bentham's was just the beginning of a proliferation of various intellectual
responses to the desire for a sysrem
system of property rights
righrs that could rest on someutilitarian strains
thing other than arbitrary Stare
sute action. Besides Lockean and utilirarian
of thought, Kant and Hegel both comributed
contributed justifications for
fOt property rights
form of the transcendental
based on the idea of a respect for personhood or some fotm
funetion:alist but nonutilitarian
nonutilin.rian theories of
and thete is a broad range of functionalisr
subject, :and
rightS Structured
structured on beh;l.ifofone
property rights
behalf of one or another version of the social good.
good.'

Beyond Property Rights: 1he

The Author and the Machine
Each of these theories
rheories continues
condnues to have its defenders. But, by the late 1970s,
19705, after
arrer
twO centuries
cemuries of experience with theoretical
(wo
rheoretical property crystals repeatedly turning to empirical mud, it began to
ro look wise ;n
in some circles to declare that
thOlt propbw professor Thomas Grey
erty was nothing but a bundle of rights or, even, as law
suggested, mat
that property was simply disintegrating."
disintegrating.'" Many academic schools of
years had quietly CX"pressed
expressed versions of this argument: the legal
thought over the yellS
realists, some legal historians, some sociologists ofbw.1he
oflaw. The Critical
Crirical Legal Studies
Srudies
movement-which appeared in the legal ac:ademy
academy with a bit of storm
stonn and fury in
t98os-was for a while simply the beSt
the early 198os-w;u
best known :and
and loudest
loudcst proponent of
the claim that things like property law had for the most part failed of their own
accord. Legal rules,
rulcs, at leasr
leaS[ in the hard cases of the type that make up Supreme
50 much anention,
attention, are indeterminate,
Court jurisprudence and thereby
CoUrt
theteby gain so
indetenninate, that
is, logically interpretable any number of ways; whar
Outwhat shapes ultimate legal outculrure, f.,shion,
f.1Shion, ideology-in short,
comes is social context, culture,
shorr, people or, statistic:ally speaking,
cally
speaking. men. This position had a strong logic to it and had aJ. certain kind
of intellectual daring.
dating.. a sense of staring down difficult truths; while ignored by
fhe
v:aSt majority of ptacricingjudges,
practicing judges. Critical
CritiC:ll Legal Studies g:lined:l
gained a foothold in
the vast
143

Op<:n Source.
Prop<:rty
Open
Source, the Expressive
E"pres.sive Progr:lmrncr.
Progr.lmmer, :l.IId
and the Problem of Property

law schools.
sdlools, By the 1980s,
Ig80s, then, thete
there were several sophisticated :md
and well-estab_
well-established schools of thought from whose point of view Nelson's drum
dream of crystalline
properey-not JUSt
ptoperty of any SOrt_
property-not
just in compurer
computer networks, but crystalline properry
SOtt_
seemed like a naive fable.
sociologisrs, moreover, the iconoclastic
iconodutic idea that property
For historians and sociologists,
state-created privileges raised
was JUSt
just a bundle of state-created.
raised. interesting questions. If properey rights were not perflmctory,
perfunctOry, if they were arbitrary constructions of the state.
state,
erty
how did they get
ger constructed, and why did we continue to talk
ralk about
abom
then exactly
euctly Iww
/mngr was one of the
Owners/lip of tllr
thI Imagt
them as rights at all?
all! Bernard Edelman's OWller$hip
first works to cackle
tackle this question in the realm of communication technology,
dle em:
late nineteenth-century encounter
encoumet with the spread of
using the example of the
photography,"
photography-II In a world where copyright law was generally justified by reference
to the labor
labot and creativity of the artist-a writer or ...a pOlintet
paintcr deserved to own his
ro
Ile or she pUt
intO it-photograor her
het work because of the labor
labot and inspiration he
put into
phy introduced
introduced. a series of quandaries,
quandaries. Was clicking the shutter
shuttet of a eamer:l
camera really
laoor deserving protection, or W:lS
merely a minor technica.l
technical
a kind of creative labor
was it metely
light~ Did the subject of a photogr.tph
photograph have
act, like switching on a light!
ha\'t some kind of
im:lge! Wasn't
th:u person's aCtual
aCnlal face and appe...rance
appearance
right to the image!
\V.un't it, after all, mat
that shaped the
rhe image on the film, not an artist's
3.rtist's interpretation of that face~ If
one believed, like Locke, that the righrs
there somewhere in nature
natute and
tights were out thete
was an imellectual
intellecrual descendant of Bento locate them was the problem, or if one W:l5
tham and assumed that one could somehow scientifically determine a social-welfare-maximizing
fate-maximi::l:ing distribution of rights, then the problem would be merely a techrhe law to
phorographr
nical one, a problem of working OUt
out how to design the
ro take photography
that they were arbitrarr,
into account. But if, like Bernard Edelman, one believed
believed.. thar
arbitrary,
interesting historical
that there was no correct answer, then the question was an intetesting
political, economic, and ideological forces shaped how
one;
conAuence of politica.l,
one: whar
what conRuence
wcre defined~
property
ptoperty rights in photographs were
defined!
instcad of the standard easy and
Edelman's analysis was significant because, instead
thc capitalist
c~pitalisr class or ~a
cynical answers to this kind of question-for example, the
interest groups simply gets wh~r
ir wants-he
w~nts-he granted that, in a spewhat it
coalition of intetest
cific way, ideas do marter,
matter. The law has to be mrmtillgful
melwillgful in order to work, and the
plarers
invoked the image of a I.aborlaborplayers in the game who made the law of copyright in\'oked
ing. creaO\'e
jUst tewards;
rewards; in other words, coming
creative individual getting his or her JUSt
up with :In
an answer to copyright in photographs involved invoking a particular
idea of the self or, in Edelman's terms, a subject. 11ut
That subject
subjecr was both
borh depicted
in the
rhe law and in a certain
cerrain way enacted by its enforcement.
enforcemenr. Edelman, borrowbortowfrom French posmructuralism,
a~ a thing
ing ftom
poststructuralism, understood the subject/self, not as
that automarically
a
automatically inhered in a persall,
person, but rather as a cultural
culmral accomplishment,
:lccompli~hment,:l
contingent organi::l:ation
organization of Ianguagc
langu:lgc and social
~ocial practices, along the lines of what

144

O~1l
Open

Source, rhe
the Problem of Property
the Expressive
Expre~sive Progr.lmmer,
Programmer, and rhe
Properry

rhar
seHhood:'" (TIle
(111e argument is, not that
John Frow calls "the imaginary forms of selfhood."t9
selves do nor
se!>'es
not exist, but that they are
arc not
nor their own explanation; when someone
deeply feels, "rhis
"this is who I truly am" or when they behave according to a certain
citizen;' say, or"[
definition of selfhood-"I
selfhood-"' am a citizen,"
or~l am a businessperson trying to
have their OWIl
make a profit"-it's not that those claims are untrue,
UntrUe, bur
but that they hal'e
own
cannOt be taken as fuJly
cultural conditions and thus cannot
fully self-explanatory.)
of ownership
Applied to the phenomenon ofcopyright, this meant
meam that a sense ofownership
of one's writings or efforts, a sense of responsibility for olle's
one's creative compositions, had to
to be acquired historically and culturally. It was not something obvious
to aU
ill people at all times, as Ayn Rand might have it, but rather, as legal historian
puts it, a habit acquired.
::I.cquired"much
lare twentieth~much in the same way as late
David Saunders PUtS
cenrur), Westerners ll:lve
reluctance and incapacity
incapa.city to spit in public."'"
century
h...ve acquired ...a relucta.nce
Pan of Edelman's unique contribution was to take rhe
culmnl subjectthe idea of cultural
rea.lm of literary analysis into a realm
rea.lm where one could
conStruction beyond the realm
specifically see the intersection of power, culture, and the state, in the momenr
moment of
specifica.lly
crearing capital,
creating
capital.
later, across the
Some )'ears
years bter,
rhe Atlantic
Adantic in the Americall
American academy.
academy, a Critical Legal
Studies-influenced law professor named Pent
Peter Jaszi
jaszi became interested in similar
interscctions,
jaszi and literary
intersections, resulting in a then-unusual collaboration between Jas::l:i
collaboration, a critical lithistori:ln
historian Martha Woodmansee. In the wake of their collaboration.
er~ture on copyright de\'eloped
developed that discovered, with a kind of astonishment, the
erature
romantic notion of the author-genius buried away
awar inside intelle(fual
intellectual property
law."
law.'"
historically a response to
to the capacities of the printing press,
Copyright, historica.lly
ptess, is not
individual book. It is about a.a text.
text,
about propert}'
property in a physical thing such as an individua.l
...bout
that is, a sequence of words or ...n
an org;a.ni::l:ation
organization of colors, shapes, and sOllndssoundssomething that can be reproduced across multiple
nlllltiple instances, actOss
across the multiple
film. But for this to make sense as something
copies of a book, a photograph, a filnl.
thar
rec
that can be owned, copyright
copytight needs to be granted to something the law can recnot a copy,
cop~~ something that is original, both in the sense of unique and in
ognize as 1I0t
the sense of having an identifiable origin. That
TIlar thing which is granted a kind of
property status,
starus, then,
then. has to be something that was not itself copied, something
thar
cre:lrion-from-nowhere. Beginning with primed books
that h:ld
had a moment of creation-fromnowhere.
themselves, judges and lawyers,
squ:lbbles and dilemmas, tended
la\\1'Cts, faced with legal squabbles
that
sprang from :Ia mOment
to imagine thar
original
thing
as
something
moment of inspithat otiginal
individual, :la genius. This, it turns
mrns out, was
ration inside the head of a unique individu:ll.
Bentham's
nor
not a figure so much like Locke's yeoman farmer cultivating land or Benrham's
calculating. profit-maximizing shopkeeper, but, both historically and phenotypically, it was something more like Goethe and Wordsworth's inspired romantic
artist~the
attist-the model for the romantic form of selfhood.
sclOl0od.

145

Open SOllrce,
dle Expressive Programmer.
Soura:, rhe
Programmer, and the Problem of Property

result, inside legal

[eg;ll cases
uses concerned
COllcerned with decidedly unrornanric
unrom;lnric topics
As a;I rcsulr,
genetie;lJJy altered cells from someone's spleen,
dat;lbases and genetically
such as computer databases
c;ln find invocations
invoc;lrions of something that looks very much like the shopworn
one can
isobted artistic genius working away
3way in a:l garret.
g:lrret.
literary figure of the romantic, isolared
literary crirics
critics and culrural
cultural historians found rhis
this interesting because they had
The lirerary
notion ofauthorship.
of authorship, The
TIle signature essay.
essay, from
frolll
deconscructing rhe
the very norian
been busy deconsrrucdng
view, was Foucault's MWhar
"What Is an
all Author:'"
Atlthort which famously
f;l1l\ously contheir point of view.
dudes with the question MWhat
"What matter who's
who's speakingt"
speaking:"'.. (Jaszi's introduction
cludes
to the legal
leg3l 2cademy
:lcademy W2S
was called
clllled ~Who
"Who C2res
Cares Who Wrore
Wrote Sh2k
Shakeof this notion ro
espe;lret)" -Ille question has double implications.
implic:ltions. On the one h2nd.
hand, the quesdon
qnestion
speue?,/'Illae
casts the common concern with specifying :luchorship
inro doubt:
doubr; why should
castS
authorship into
\\'har does that teU
tell us about his
Shakespe:lre was 2S
as 2a pefllon~
person! \Vhat
it matter who Sh2kespeare
matter~ But.
Bm, on th~ other hand.
hand, it also
;1[$0 r.lises
r;lises;l2 question of
works, about why they m2tter:
works.
ide;l of the author as 2a genius-creator
genius-creatOr operates in history and society.
$OCiet)', the
how the ide2
what Foucault called the 2uthor-fimction.
author-function.
question of whu
111is
to a great de.u
deal of fruitful scholarship that
This approach opened the door to
cutting-edge humanisu
hunlanisrs and
;lnd cultural critics
cridcs with
widl those
rhose
m;lrried the COncerns
concerns of cuning-edge
married
leg;II scholars.
seholus. Film scholar Jane
J;lne Gaines, for example.
example, published :Ia book demof legal
intellectual property
properry C2fl
can illuminate 3n
underst3ndonstraring how;ln
analysis of inteUeenu1
onsmting
how an :lnalysis
an underStandfilms.... Law
L;lW professor James Boyle ;m;lly:zed
analyzed trends in copyright law using
ing of films."
scholus."
Boy[e in panicparticinsighrs borrowed from Foucault and
;lnd other continent:U
continent;ll scholars.
It Boyle
insights
u[n
to how the cre;ltion-from-nowhere
;lssumptions associated
;lssociued
ular called attention ro
creation-from-nowhere assumptions
genius, what he called the Mauthor-ideology:
"author-ideology; had
with the conCept
concept of authorial genius......hat
soci:ll conditions of creation.
cre;ltion, leading to questionable
the effect of obscuring the social
legal policies and obscuring various forms of collecrh'e
collective culrural
cultural and intellectual
production. Law professor and anthropologi5t
anthropologist Rosemary Coombe further elabo"double-jointedproblem, granting Boyle's point but also noting the Mdouble-joimedrated on the problem.
law, the W2Y
way it can go in multiple,
ness"
ness~ of the idea of authorship in law.
multiple. sometimes
unpredictable directions; ifMauthor-ideolog{
if "author-ideology" generally functions to shift power
$;Iy, Disney or Time Warner.
Warner, ir
it also can sometimes
crearion towards,
over culture creation
rowards. say.
support,
say,
Native
American
groups
trying
to
protect
their
cultural heritage."
herirage."
Americ:m
rrying
suppOrt. say.
quesdons, however.
however, the courrs
courts
While scholars were pursuing these interesting questions,
;lnd legislaturcs
legisbtuteS of the United States,
Sratcs, and ro
to a large degree of the world, were
and
skeprical line of reasoning regarding private
privare property.
pursuing a decidedly less skeptical
rhought, property relarions
Under the sway of neoliberal habits of thoughr.
relations were being
water, to highways, to
extended ever more widely-to watet.
to genes, and, in the realm
of intellectual properry,
property, to software patents, to
to business models, to
ro the "look and
sofrwue, to ever-longer copyright duration-and
dur;ltion-and in the early
e;lrly 1990S this
feel" of software,
W;lS generally presented as the
rhe only logical
logial approach.
;lppro;lch. A task force created
creued by the
rhe
was
P;lper calling for strengthening
Clinton administration
;ldministr;ltiol1 in 1993 released a White
\"'hire Paper
Clinron
146

Opcn Source. the Expressive Prognmmu,

Progr:lllllller, and [he
dle Problem
PmblcllI of Property
Pmperry
Open

digital technologies,"
1994, the United
inrellectual ptoperty
property in the face of new digit:ll
technologies." In 1994.
intellectual
intellectual property law an
States and European nations succeeded in making intellectu:ll
dement of the international system
syStem of trade in the TRIPS agreement, adminelement
digit3l realm
re;llm was dear,
clear, efficient.
efficient, moral,
istered by the WTO. Property in the digital
powet were concerned-inevitable.
concerned-incvit;lhJe. The
111C principle ofuthe
of"the
and-as far as those in power
better" seemed inexorable.
more property protection the bc:tter~
rhe other
orher side of the intellectual fence.
fence, it did nor
not help that Critical
Crirical Legal
Legal
On the
Srudies
and
its
fellow
travelers
were
vague
when
it
caIne
to
solmions.
CririfeUow
CJme to solutions. CritiStudies
cal Legal Studies was generally thoughr
rhought to
ro be a left-wing movement
movcment because
bccause
botb legal moderates and conservatives inside
it typically crossed swords with both
and because it seemed to make a;I case for
fot relatively radical
radic;ll changes
law schools 2nd
W;lS not,
nOt, however.
however, exactly
cx3crly the activist Left of the civil
in legal interpretation. It was
e;lrly 196os.
1960s, which.
which, following Marrin
Martin Lurher
Luther King.
King, Jr.
Jr.,
rights movement of the early
ide:ll of rights;
rights: that earlier version of the Left
Lefr
its claims in terms of the ide.u
couched iu
th;lt the United States
Stares live up ro irs
its own ideals.
ideals,
proceeded largely by demanding that
King said, every citizen's right (Q
to life.
life, liberty.
liberty, 2nd
and the pursuit
th;lt it uphold,
that
uphold. as IGng
contrast, seemed to be saying.
saying, not that
tim
of happiness. Critial
Critical Legal Srudies,
Studies. in connut.
standards, but thac
thu it could
cOllld nOI
Itot live up to
law was failing to live up to its own standards.
standards. Yes, this also meant
me:mt that
those srandards.
that the law could in theory be changed any
irself rhe
the theory did not offer any basis for deciding what
ways. but by itself
number of ways,
rrue, moreo\'er,
happent'.d (Q
to the
was trUe.
moreover. wh;lt
what had happened
those changes should be. If this W;lS
oflawf
tht'. rule of men.
men, where judges seme
settle
rule of
law! Were we jusr
just collapsing back into the
views~ Had we ever even left it!
it~
persOllal political views:
disputes based on their own pc:r-sonal
\Vh;lt was the alternative~
alternativef
\V}ut
So, even for irs
its enthusiasts.
enthusiasts, there
therc was
was something
somcthing disheartening
dishe;lrtening about the
So.
Critic;ll Legal Studies position. Once one had est2blished,
esclhlished, ar
at least to one's own
Critical
of
the
domin:mt
ide3s,
what
nexr?
Perhaps a colorsarisf;lction,
the
bankruptcy
dominant ideas, whar nexr~ Pemaps
sadsfaaion.
idt'.als might be enough for those who relish the
rht'. moment
mOlllt'.nt
fully ironic take on legal ideals
But, as conservative
COnservative law and economics rheorists
theorists
of iconoclasm for its own sake. But.
OIl accuallc:ga1
aetu;ll legal decision making. for those with
were wielding ever more influence on
positions,;Ia list of much-disllluch-disimportant insight into the holes in the conservative positions.
tenuted law professors making
Ill;lkillg eleganr
elegant critiques seemed
cussed books and a;I few tenured
jusr take
r:lke :lpart
aparr other people's
like small comfort. If you wanted to do more dl;ln
than JUSt
ideu in front of your colleagues.
colle:lgues, if rou
you wanted to be pUt
part of some 3ctll;ll
acrnal positive
ideas
m:lde
a
difft'.rence,
change, if you wanted to do something that ;lctu;llly
actually made difference, where
tum~
were you supposed to
to rurn~
appe;lrance of the internet presented
prest'.nted;ln
In this context, the surprising appearanCe
an opportunity.
Pury Bulow,
Wired published an essay by John Perry
Barlow, which, in a
In March 1994, Wirrd
dismissive sweep characteristic of both, was subtitled, "Everything You Know
147

Source, the
rhe Expres.sive
Expressive Pr<>gr.lmlller.
Programmer, and the Problem of Property
Open Source:.

about Intellectual
lnrellcctual Propcny
Ptoperty Is Wrong."
Wtong." Here,
Here. suddenly,
suddenly. was something that

looked like a Critical

Ctitical Legal Studies atgument
argument appearing in a hip popular maga_
lmga_
zine.
The resemblance,
resemblance. to be sure, was mostly
mosrly in the title,
title. The artide,
anide, about patzinc, 111e
ents
ems and copyright in the digital
digiul realm, uked,
asked,
If our property an
r~n be
i,,~nitdy reprodllced
distributed ~ll
bC' infinir~ly
r~produced ~nd
and inltant~neously
inst:anunrously disrribur~d.tll
Ifour
without rOlt,
knowledge, without
leaving our
over the
rh~ planet
pbnet wirhout
cosr, without
withour our knowledge.
wirhour its
iu even
~ven le.tving
possession ... what will ;lS5U"'"
assure che
the continued cre.lriOIl
poss~uion."
crution and distribution ofsuch
of such
work? ... 11le
accumulatl-Q canon
copyright ~Ild patelll
law was
developed to
woal
Th~ xcumularcd
unon of
ofcopyrighr:rnd
p.1t~nr bw
w;u; d~V<'loped
convey fornu
and methods of e~preS$ion
the vaporous
com'Cy
forms :md
upr~uionentirely
=tird)" di/ferel1l
dilfuenr fTOm
from rhe
....tporous cugo
urgo
ir is now being asked
to any.
carry. It islealdtlg
within u
as from withuked ro
is le;Wng as
u much from wirhin
om.... Inrellectual
parched. retrofitted,
or expanded to
ro
our.".
InrelJernuI property
ptopetT)' law
UW annOl
cannot be patched,
rerrofirred.01exp.tnded
conr~in
expresSion :my
any morc
rh~n real
t'll~re uw
law might
mighr be revised
cover
connin digirized
digitized expression
more than
rd esr::l.1e
revisccl to cavarhe
alJOCItion ofbro.tdasringspecrrum
of broadcasting sptmm (which,
rarher rC$emblcs
rh~ .tlloc:uion
(which. in 00.
faa, r2thn
resembles what
.....lur is
being attempted
mempeed hete).
het~). \Ve
V{e ....
will
ilI need
nttd to develop::ln
de"dop an ~nrirdy
entirely new
nnv ser
sa of methods:u
methods as
befiu this entirely
set of
circulllS!ances....
11>e wurce
as
be6u
mrirely new J,C[
ofcircumsr::>.nces.
... Th~
sotl'U of this
chis conundrum i.
il:U
simple as in
irs JOIurion
solution is
i. complex. Digita.l
technology is deuching
inform~rion from
simple.ts
Digiw redmology
d~ing inform.trion
rhe
the physical
physic.tl pI.tne.
plane. ....
where
here Propl:rty
propcrq' law
1.1.... of:ill
of allsoru
sons hu
has always
.tlwa)'$ found definition."
definicion.. ..

For l::lw
l:aw professors
mher intellectuals
skeptial of the project of property,
professon and orner
imdlecruals skeprical
voice from an unexpected place.
this looked like a::I friendly "oice
pbce. To be sure, for somehistoricallin~rantrc
one steeped
sreeped in the critical :md
::Ind historical
literature on intellectual property, many
clainlS were dubious. Digital technology was different, but
of Barlow's specific claims
and Edelman had shown how successfully
photography,:rnd
once upon a time so was photography,
law
had
been
adopted
to
that
once-new
and befuddling technology: historirhe
the
h:ld bee:n :ldopted
:md
music." And
ans could rell
tell simil:lt
similar storia
stories about broadcasting.
broadcasting.. filnl,
and recorded music."
film,:md
based on "the physical
physic~l plane"
plane" was peculiu;
peculiar:
Barlow's idea that old laws
l:lwS were all
all1secl
i'Jliwgible things.
rhings. There
111ere was litrle
linle new
intellecmal property has alw:lYS
always been about illttlllgible
inrellecrual
(Wllile iis
it's true that
rhat copyright has genergellerabout the virtuality"
"virtuality" of digital property. (While
"at'e fixed in a tangible medium of expression"ally protected only things th:lr
that "are
expressionthat is, written down or somehow recorded-the difference between a:l printed
degree, not of
tape and a digitally rransmirred
transmitted text is one of degree.
casserrt: rape
book or a cassette
011
a
page
nor
words
displayed
on
a screen arc
kind.) Neidler
words
displayed
Neither
on :l p:lge
:I
:lrt:
complerely
TI,e lack of
completely lacking in physical substance,
subsrance, and both arc
are easily copied. The
fit between the law and the realiry,
reality, from the
me point of view of lhe
the accumulated
criticalliterarure
critical literature on property. was nothing new. A Critical Legal Studies aficiogeller/Ii was
nado might have said that everything we know about property ill ge'lCTlII
wrong.. so what's the big deal about pointing this out
our in the digital tcllm~
realm~
wrong.
Yet even for someone who was aware of all that, there was something alluring
in Barlow's jeremiad. In a by-then-familiar lllOVC,
move. Barlow distinguished between
that
the cool young folks who got it and the old suits that did nor.
not. He argued thar
create soft
soft- property-the
property-rhe programmers, hack"most of the people who actually cre:ue
148

Opcn
Source. the
Property
Open Sourc~,
[h~ Expressive
Erpressive Programmer,
Programmer. and the Problem of
ofProp<:rry

ers, and Ner

Net surfers-already know this. Unfortunately,
Unfortunately. neither the companies
direct experithey work for nor the lawyers these companies hire have enough direcr
ence with nonmaterial goods to understand why they are so problematic." 11le
The
time were already develop"programmers, hackers, and
:rnd Net surfers," who at that
thu rime
ing a heroically rebellious status in the
tile culture, thus might in fact
f3Ct be willing to
rally behind someone who d:\imed
claimed that all those old lawyers were wrong. Decon-

structing property l::>.w

law might
bur following Barlow's
mighr impress a few colleagues, but
to new, more hopeful placa.
places. Here was a potential ally,::I
ally, a new
lead might
mighr take one ro
potential audience, and, unlike the seemingly impotent Critical Legal Studies, a
111llke n
II diffetrllCt.
difference.
him of something that might actually mnke
Barlow's essay exemplifies how the generalized rOlll:lnticized
construction of
romanticized construcrion
context of the spreading internet created a context for a poputhe digiral in the COntext
larized iconoclasm. The surprising spread of the internet with the romanticized
made it easier,
sense of rebellion so successfully propag:ated
propagated by Wirt'd
Wirrd suddenly m:lde
even attractive,
to dismiss large chunks of the received wisdom. In this new conam2ctivt:, ro
lhe received
text, inteUe<tual
propeny might be one of those areas where the
reeeh'ed wisdom
intellectual property
might be changed, notJUSt
not JUSt criticized.
Cyberlaw
The Birth of Cyberl.aw
Lawrence Lessig
was at
assistant professor of law
13w at the
L.awrence
lLssig W:l..'i
::It the time
rime a promising assist:mt
University of Chicago. He had
published
a
series
of
articles
on
problems
of Conh:ld
.seria
gnawing
stitutional interpretation rhar
that demonstrated a solid awareness of the
stirution.al
me gn.awing
interpretation foregrounded by Critical Legal Studies, but :m
all
dilemmas of legal inrerpreGlrion
unwillingness ro
to accept the fatalism
futalism rhe
the position suggested. His first I;lw
l.aw journal
publication, for example, was a comparison and ContnSt
Contrast between the theories of
publication.
legal moderate Bruce Ackerman and those of the thundering nco-Hegelian
star
nw-Hegelian srar
Studies mo,emenr.
movement, Roberto Unger."
Unger.' Lessig argued that the
of the Critical Legal Studia
assumed.
two approaches were less disrant
distant from olle
than was commonly :lssumed,
one another th:ln
him
in
the
position
of
both
young
turk-each
scholar
and
their folwhich pUt
put
posirion
divisiOns were nor
not as
nlOderate-the divisions
lowers were wrong about something-and moderate-the
pronounced as most thought, and in the polarized legal acadetllY
academy of the day being
a moderate could actually appear as iconoclastic."
iconoclastic." And,
And. as the 19905
1990S progressed,
that
showed
a
keen
intereSI in and
Lessig published a series of scholarly arcicles
anicles
interest
assumptions in legal debate,
grasp of the role of first principles and underlying assumption~
sense, to
maintaining a conviction
convicrion that the law could be made to make ~ense,
while also maimaining
live up to its promises; the
rhe law could work.
In the manner of Critical Legal Studies,
Smdies, Lessig regularly pointed to
to the weaknesses of the assumpdons
assumptions underlying various philosophies of jurisprudence,
wrote. for example, that the underlying
though he did so in a gentle tone.
rone. He wrote,
149

Open Sourc~, rh~

th~ Expreuive
Programmer, and the
Property
Exprnsive Progr~mmer.
rhe Problem of Prop~ny

principles of the entire law md

and economics movement tend to rely on an
3.n ecoprin<:iples
~spatseness and simplicit{ sometimes might "make
~m3.ke one
nomic theory whose ~sparscness
mi$S something important.""
imporrant.~~ Or that all the various effortS
efforts to define a system of
miss
ConStitutional interprerarion
interpretation that accounts
actounts for the dramatic hisrory
history of change
changc in
Constiturional
interpret3.tions
interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution tely
rely on ~plenry
"plenty of intuitions,
but no satisfactory account.
account.~11 Unlike Critical Legal Studies, however, Lessig dishinlSelf from those who would say rhat
that dlese
these weaknesses might make one
tances himself
leg;ll reason itself
iudf is rorten
rotten to rhe
the core.
core_ An account
;lccount of the meaning
me3.ning of
wonder if legal
human.3.ctions, he suggests, can complement
complemem efforts
efforrs to
to apply economie
economic reasoning
reuoning
human,.actions,
translation em
can revh'e
revive the idea of fidelity to the Constituto the law; a theory of tr.lnslarion
that suggests a lack of faithfulness."
faithfulness. l '
rhe face of all the historical evidence rhat
tion in the
nl.ther uniqudy
someolle wirh
with his training.
tr.lining.. Lessig
l.cssig was also a h2bitu21
habitual
But, rather
uniquely for someone
pUt
dabbled in progtamming
programming after college." This put
fiddler with computers, having d2bbled
that category of individuals who would be experiencing the rise of me
the
him in thar
Court
imernet before their superiors aught
internet
caught on. While clerking for Supreme Coun
sevenl.l
Amonin $calia
Scalia in the 1990-1991 tenn,
term, he m:rn.:lged
managed ro convince severn
Justice Antonin
justices to sun
surt using microcomputer-baud
microcomputer-based publishing softwue
software ro
to replace their
3.ntiquated
alternative software on his laptop. By Lesantiquated syStem by demonstrating 2lrernative
Barlow-em;l,il-moment was a cover story in the ViIIllge
Village Voice
Voiu by
sig's account, his Barlow-email-moment
Julian Dibbell called ~A
''A Rape in
ill Cyberspace;
Cybcrspace;' which appeared in Dec. 1993-a
months after me
the internet firsr
first hit the media
medi3. ndar_
r.l.dat. It \v.t$
was a discussion of a
few monms
"as he read Dibworld.'" According to Steven Levy, ~as
npe in an online game world."
virtual rape
S[ruck by how closely
closdy me
the concerns of the participanrs
participants in
bell's piece, Lessig was srruck
the virrual
virtual world ... resonared
resonated with those of [legal scholar C2therineJ
Catherine] MacKinme
radic3.1 views (porn isn'r
isn't protected
non, whose radical
ptotected speech) were generally considered
Voice. This suggested to Lessig th:lt
that cyberspace was virgin intelat rhe
the Voia,
anathema ar
lectu3.1 territory,
territoty, where ideas
ide3.s had yet to be boxed in by onhodoxy.
orthodoxy. 'It w:lS.:I.
was a place
lectual
(heir politics: says
$:IYs Lessig.~r.
Lessig."ll
where nobody knows their
The move from the dry world of theories of constiturional inrerpretarion
interpretation to
wriring .:I.bour
about the internet, then,
rhen, while certainly occasioned in part by Lessig's perwriting
rhe surprising explosion of the inrerintersonal hobby of working with computers and the
mOtivated by the desire to do some,hiug
something
net on the scene in 1993 and 1994, was also motivated
/hill rna/lered
milltered in a world where conservative
sccmed to hold:all
hold all the power.
power,
Ihnt
conserv:arive thinking
rhinkingseemed
"cyberl:lwyer,~ Lessig h:as
has s:aid,
said,
Look.ing back
b:lck on his move rowards
towatds becoming a ~cyberlawyer,~
Looking
iuud; I think
mink arc
unjusc abour
legal syuem,
system, ou=~'
outr.lgeously
There are wues
are deeply UnjUSl
about our leg:d
10. You know.
sptem for
fOT the
rhe poor is out[;l~
outr~geous, md
~nd I'm
rm wildly ~
oppoJcd
so.
know, the legal s)'Su:m
ro
the
dearh
penalry.
TI1CfC
afe
a
million
rhings
like
th3t-you
callT
do
anything
to
death ~n:a.lrr There are a
things
th,u-you aliI'
an)'I'hing
about them. II could go be a~ polirici~n.
poIirician, bur
but JIjun
jUA could never
ncver do something
JOmething like
~bout
thu. But
Bur [cyberspace)
[cyberspace] w~s
wu an
are3 where, dIe
tbe morr
more II undemood
understood it,
felt
that.
~n ;Iru
iI', the
rhe more II fdr
chere was
right mswer.
:Ulswer. The law
bw dau
docs give aa right mswer."
answer,there
wu:aa righr
n

"

150

rhe Expressive Programmer,:trId

Programmer, and tIY
d1(' Problem of Property
Properry
Open Source, the

the e2l'ly
early 1990S,
19901, 2mong
among intellecruals
intellectuals spending their
not alone. In rhe
Lessig was nor
unexpected
spare rime
time discovering me
the pleasures of online communicating..
sp.:l.re
communicaring. the unexpcc:ted
internet seemed ro
to creare.:l.n
create an opportunity for bringing up big philospread of the
rite interner
rhat mighr
might be heard outside
ourside me
rhe confines
ftesh ways, in ways that
sophical issues in fresh
of a narrow circle of colleagues,
colle3.gues, in ways that
rhat :lctually
actually [night
might have an inAuence.
influence.
took. esrablished
established institutions by surprise in rhe early
11le way that
The
th2t the internet took
an opening.
opening.. .a:I. pbce
place where intellectual iconoclasm actually might
1990S offered .:I.n
academy,
gain some purchase outside the aademy.
As we saw in the
rhe lasr
last ch.:l.pter,
chapter, libertarians like Esrher
Esthet Dyson began to discover
1980s and sei2;ed
sei:l:ed on irit in the
che pages of Wired and other
this possibility in the late
bre 1'}80s
mis
venues; in a3. sense, their hope was that, somehow, computer technology could
back. into cryst2ls.
crystals. As the 19905 progressed, however, it was the iconoturn mud back
to move row:.lrds
tow3.rds the interner.
internet. Boyle, whose
clasts of the legal Left who began to
r3.nge of topics
lOpics from indigenous
intellectual property covered a full range
first book on intellecrual
tr.l.ding.. began focusing more on the
cultural knowledge ro
to genetics ro
to insider trading.
rhe
culrural
the mid-1990s.
mid-1990S, A legal historian on Ille
faculty at
me faculry
specifically digital world in me
Columbia Law School named Eben Moglen signed on to be general counsel to
the
t,hen-Iittle known Free Soffware
Software Foundation in 1993; Moglen had worked
me rhen-Jirrle
early legal career was made up of
as a programmer in the early 1980S, bur his e2Tly
historiography of early twelltiem-century
twentieth-century law {md
(and an
3.n
law journal articles on the historiogn.phy
that weighed in on some fine points
poims of CriticallLgal
Critical Legal Studies's principle of
article mar
legal inderenninacy)."
indeterminacy)."
Iega.!
Ir is common enough for a mid-areer
mid-career professor,
prore~sor, once granted
gtanted tenure and
It
to prove oneself to senior colleagues,
colle:l.gues, to
rhus no longer so needful of having to
look for something :Ia little more worldly, something that might take one doser
closer
to me
the rough-and-tumble of current evems,
events, Bur this move Ilsually
rhe
ro
usually takes the
the more a.bstr.lu,
abstr:l.c(, perha.ps
perhaps philosophical
philosophic3.1 concerns
form of backing off from rhe
:l.cademy; one StartS
srarts accommodatthat seem of highest intetest inside the academy;
th.:l.r
of, say, politicims,
politicians, or pn.cricing
practicing bwyers,
lawyers, or inrerest
interest groups.
ing the concerns of.
What is striking about me
the development or
cybc:rlaw was rhe degree to which
of cyberla.w
Whar
i( was driven by a:I. sense, not that one would have to aba.ndon
abandon rhe philosophiit
GIl to deal with the "real"
~real~ world, but almost
almoSt the revetse.
reverse. 111e
cal
The way the internet
entered American social and political life creared a comext
context that seemed to
into first principles while also mainraining
maintaining .a:I. sense
actually welcome an inquiry imo
possibilities, lntellecnW
Intellectual radicalism-in me
the sense of .a:I. critique of
of positive pouibiliries.
the underlying conditions of a situation-seemed to
to be the way
the roots, of the:
copyright (or property, or gO\'erngovernto go. Maybe everything we thought about copyrighr
rhe context
COntext of the internct,
internet, that
ment
menr regulation) was wrong; bur,
but, uniquely in the
wa~ perhaps not dispiriting. [r
It carried with it a sense thar
that someconclusion was
done,
thing could be done:.
151

the Expressive Programmer.

Programmer, and me
[he Problem of Property
Open Source, rhe

111c
The Microsoft Problem

111e
nrSt years
ye3U of whal
what would become known 3.S
as eyberb.w
cyberbw mosdy involved
The first
310ng with the Wind
Wired vision-the internet
inrernet W3S
a realm of potential
W2$ 3.
riding along
(0 be sullied by old corpor.ate
corporate 3.nd
and government
th:u ought nOI
not to
new freedom that
w:lys-while deb3.ting
debating the particulars with those earlier iconoclutic
iconoclastic entr2llts
entrantS
ways-while
into the open culruril
eulcur;l.l sp3.ce
space created by the internet surprise: the m:uket
lllarket purinro
ists and Iiberuri:ms.
libertari:lllS. However, as Microsoft readjusted itself to the emerging
t996, it no longer looked self-evident that the internet's
interne!"S
internet in 1995 and 1996,
openness would ovenhrow
Overthrow the Microsoft empire; Microsoft, by throwing its
operarenonnous
resources into its browser and lever.aging
lever.lging its domination of operatenormous usourC6
dominare the
ing systems,
systemS, could coloni%e
roloni:l:e the internet JUSt as it had come ro dominate
personal computer.
SpOrt, particularly
programmers
panicularly among progr.ammers
Hating Microsoft has been a popular spon,
TIle railing against Microsoft does not come from exactly the
and technophilcs. The
generali:l:ed railing against
againsr corporations in the United
same place as the more generali%ed
rhe ProStates, True, ever since they took center stage in the U.S. economy in the
States.
critici:l:ed and anacked
attacked :llmost
almost as much
gressive Era, large corporations have been cririci%ed
celebrared and emulated. And inrdleauaI
intellectual property has often
ofren
as they have been celebrated
been a source of power for many of them; carefully cultivated patent libraries tied
the strength
to investment-guided research and development provided much of tlte
of early
e:arly twentieth-century
twentiedl-cenrury corporations,
as Dow Chemical,
Chemic:lI, Gener21
General Eleccorpotations, such ;lS
RCA.'"
tric, Westinghouse, and RCA
....
Btl[
the
resentment
against
Microsoft is uniquely personalized.
personali:l:ed. Criticisms of
But
Microsofr rarely associate the company with corporations with similarly priviMicrosoft
mictoprocessor manufacrure
manufaCTUre or
leged positions
posirions in their fields (such as Intel in microproces.sor
l~ed
Onele in database
dat:lbase management
managemenr srstems),
systems), and the Strucruril
Strucrural conditions of corOracle
irs own reward are
arc not usually discussed.
porate capitalism
c3pitalism thar
that render bigness its
por2te
Gares, and
critieiSlns are typically focused on the company founder, Bill Gates,
Instead, criticisms
(0 criticisms of the quality of its
irs products
produCTS and the
rhe implication
implicarion tbat
that there
linked to
peculi:lrly nefarious about
abom the whole enterprise. The website
websire SI;lSh
Slashis something peculiarly
enrlmsiasTS, labels
dot, popular among computer professionals and open source enthusiasts,
Google, Sony, Apple, Yahoo-with
stories about most corporations-AOL, Goog1e,
corporare logos or pictures of products. The icon for Microsoft-related
Microsofr-related stories,
corporate
contrasr, superimposes the headgear of the Borg-the evil, mind-controlling
in contrast,
Slilrtrck TV series-on top of a picture of Bill
l3ill Gates. Computer
empire from the Stllrtrek
scienrists who go to
to work for Microsoft find themselves :lpologi%ing
apologi:l:ing for their
rheir
scientists
choice of employer in professional fora. Like a mythic demon in a rribe's collective
negarive image in the symbolic
symboliC
[ore, Bill Gares
Gates has been turned into an important negative
lore,
economy of online culture.
15.1
152

Source, lhe
the Exprcuivc
ElI"pressi"e Progumm"r,
Programmer. 'lnu
Property
Open Source.
and the Problem of Propc:ny

%y
Gates~ Significantly,
Significanrly, Bill Gates
Gares
Why this intense focus on the person of Bill Gates?
not from software rhat
that he :lcrually
became rhe
the richest person in the world, nor
aCtually wrote,
bm basiGl.lly
other sofrware
carefully
but
basically by managing the labor of orher
software writers and carelUlly
their work. Gates did do subsub
distribution and marketing of theit
manipulating the distributiOn
progr:lmming in the company's early
carly entrepreneurial years
stantial amounts of programming
1970S and early 1980s. But rhe
produers thar
of the late 1970S
the products
that became the foundation
ro dominance-MSDOS, \Vindows,
Windows, Excel,
of the company's spectacular rise to
Word-were created and mainr.ained
maintained by others.
\Vord-were
in the annals of corpor2te
corporate America, Microsofts
Microsoft's business srrategy is hardly
In
that Gates once
journ;llist Roben
Robert Cringely
Cringdy claims th3.r
surprising. Silicon Valley journalist
mOnty in the computer business is by selting
setting
rhat ~the way to make money
told him that
de factO
facro standards.~"
srandards.~" Insofar
insofar .as
as computing is .about
about communication-which,
communic:ltiOll-which, as
the case since about 1970-having
1970-h:lving the same sysrem
system
we've seen, has been mosdy
mostly rhe
its own reward. A better system th,:I[
that is different from
that everyone else has is itS
IlOf bener.
better. Call it network externalities,
everyone else's is, in an important sense, not
c:lll it the fundamentally
fund:lmentally social charactet
character of human
call it parh
path dependence, or call
Microsoft's core strategy has
existence, there is much value in commonality, and Microsofts
to exploit that fact.
Sct. Become the norm and then charge for it; all other goals
been to
are secondary. MSDOS was probably nOt
tlot technically better than other available
1980S,
but
Microsoft did e"erything
everything rhey
to
operating systems of the early
eatly
they could to
:l5 if
it spread
everywhcre. a cycle was estab~rab
insure that it was everywhere. And as
sptead everywhere,
manufacturers of hardware
hardw:lre and SOftware
to create rhings
things
software ro
lished that encouraged manufaCturers
openting system, and
3nd as they
rhey did so they
rhey further
widl Microsofts
Microsofr's operating
that worked with
cycle continuu
continues to this day.
dar
reinforced Microsofts
Microsofr's position;
posirion; this self-reinforcing crcle
poim of vie.....,
view, this is not all thar
that troubling. 'The
Tile
From a business management point
EcoIJomist calmly noted th2t,
that, in spite some
sOllle of his claims to the COntrary,
contrary, Gatu
Gates is
Eco'lomi51
further ahead
:lhead than
th:lIl others or builds unique
not a technological leader who sees lUnher
"making money in the slipsrream
slipstream of
and pathbrCllking
pathbreaking products.
produCts. His skill is in Hmiling
2nd
people's technological
rechnological vision~
vision"-and
its own is perfectly reasonable,
Other peoples
-2Ild this on irs
The ECOIlOmiJf
as far as ~
.as
Ecollomi5t is concerned."
rhe acknowledgment
:lck.nowledgmenr
Bill Gates is uniquely a problem only if you think that the
crtativity is of overriding importance -that
-rh:lr
and reward of individual effort and creativity
poinr of view. From this point
is, if you are attracted to a romantic individualist point
galling.. panicularly
particularly [0
to someone who actually does
of view, Microsoft is incredibly galling.
managing or making software.
softw:tre. As Microsoft's dominance steadily
rhe work of m2naging
do the
1990S, the growing world community
cOlllmunity of progr2mmers
programmers and other
grew in the 1990S,
computer experts regularly experienced visceral annoyance :It
ar the
tlte success of Bill
Gares;
rewards, nuning
mrning those
Gates; he was reaping the rew:lrds,
rhose rewards ro his further advanir by building:l
building a better
benet mouserr:lp.
mousetrap. and he wasn't doing
tage, but he wasn't doing it
what they saw as rhe
the real work. He wasn't creating much thar
that was rruly
truly new or
ISJ
153

Open Source, the

tlte Exprtssi\'e
Expressive Programmer, and rhe Problem of Propc:rty
Property
Opc:n

better. If the most fundamental of all rights is, as Ayn Rand put it, "[0 think, to
work and keep the results," there was something wrong; the people who were
doing the thinking and working weren'r keeping the results. This situation was
not enchanting.
The Creation of the Open Source Idea
One of rhe difficulties for Bentham's premise that people are rational and selfinteresred is that, on the surface of it, they somerimes are nor. Most people at
rimes clearly like co do work for something larger than rhemselves, for example.
Soldiers, athletes on reams, mountain climbers, family members in moments of
celebration or crisis, and law students on the law review ofren recall rhe intense
energy and feeling of solidarity thar comes from working on behalf of the group,
frequently with an amount of effort rhar is clearly not in one's obvious self-interest. People will often say, in fact, they have worked harder in these situations than
in contexts where they were working purdy for their own gain. It is only because
utilitarian reasoning has become so raken for granted in our culture that the same
people who speak fondly of such moments of working for the group can tum
around and say things like "everybody knows that welfare discourages initiative"
or ~if people can'r make money from ir, it won'r ger done."
Yet more than a few computer engineers know from personal experience that
sometimes people will do things even if they could make more money from
doing something else, and, as we saw in chapter four, a number of those inside
the interner engineering community saw computer networking as a case in
point. There are rimes when some of the best work is done, not to maximize
poim.
profit, but out of passion or commitment to something larger. In the early 1990S,
pront,
as the interner spread like wildnre
wildfire and became coupled in the popular imagin;limagin:lcion to an unregulated free market, some of these engineers started to raise their
H:luben, for example, published Nctizms,
voices in protest. Michael and Ronda H;luben,
an important book that compellingly detailed rhe numerous ways in which the
internet was born of and embodied, not capitalist self-interest, bur forms of
spirited and deliberately collective action. Unix, they showed, was designed from
the ground up to enable collaboration and the sharing of interoperable software tools so as to encourage collective improvement of the system. l11e internet
appeared, not JUSt because of various nonprofir arrangements, but because of
its deliberate design, on both a technical and sodal level, as an open system
nonprofit collaborative combuilt for shared collective clfore. Usenet and other nonpront
munication systems both spread much of the knowledge that made the global
interner possible and taught a generation of technical professionals the value of
online, citizenly collaboration.
154

Open Source, the Expressive Programmer, and rhe Problem of Properry

It is perhaps because of the overwhelming dominance of the taken-for-granred

utilitarianism in American society that those wirh different views sometimes feel
compelled ro leap to the other extreme. The Haubens took their crucial observation-that some of our mOSt advanced technologies like the internet did lIot
emerge solely from self-interested. profit-motivated contextS and logics-and
used it to then insist that Ilonprofit behavior is obviously morally and technically
superior. They defined and valorized the "nerizens," nor as people who merely used
me internet, but people who "understand the value ofcommunal work and the collective aspects ofpublic communication ... people who care about Usener and the
bigger Net and work towards building the cooperative and collective nature which
benefits the larger world:" "The so-called 'free marker;" they argued, "is not a corbenents
rect solution for the problem ofspreading network access to all:'.. Never mind the
ideologically blurry tradition of Vannev:u Bush, with irs rechnocratic faith in the
ability of experts to elegantly mix public and private efforts or all the back-andforth movement between private and public contexts characteristic of many of the
engineers that the Haubens lionized. In the first half of rhe 1990S, faced with the
spread of the bizarre claim that the triumph of the internet was somehow a triumph of free individual initiative and of the market, the Haubens seized on the
opposite claim: NetiUIl$ presents a picture ofcomputer communications as a nonprofit communitarian utopia, threatened by ignorant capitalist managers.
This stance of reacting to utilitarian dominance with communitarian purism
is shared by Richard Srallman. Today he is a hacker hero, bur in rhe early 1990S
his effort to make a free and open clone of the Unix operating system was known
only to narrow computer engineering circles (and those readers of Levy's Hackers that made it all the way to the end). Stallman, upset by the restrictions that
ensued from the commercialization of systems like Unix in the bte 1970S and
:llternative soft1980s, set OUt to create, not just another version of Unix, but an ;llternative
ware universe in which the free sharing of software code was reqllitt'd by those
using it; towards that end he created the Free Software Foundation and a unique
specified that
form of copyright license, the Genera! Public License or GPL, that specined
a piece of software could be freely shared and used provided that whoever dismodifications to that
tributes ir also freely distributes the source code and any modincations
SOurce code. Instead of, say, releasing software code into the public domain, copy:lnd open distribution,
right was retained, but for the purpose of maintaining free ;lnd
not for the purpose of preventing others from selling the software. It was less
a nonproperry or public domain approach than a kind of antiproperty. In 1991,
when a Finnish college student named Linus Torvalds, as a way to learn about
operating sysrems, began building an experimental operating system kernel, he
early on copyrighted it IIsing the GPL, so that he and collaborators could also use
sofrware tools created by Stallman and his colleagues."
155

Open Source, rhe Expressive Programmer, and rhe Problem of Property

ry
urity
securi
srige and job s
nments, where one's prestig
iroonm
envvir
d
n
kin
tai
cer
ain
In research and academic ell
a
n,, this made cen
ion
o~rtio
collab
labora
on and col
ariion
publi
liccat
pub
en
op
y
on
s
hno
log
dep
end
bigh tec
ofren
oft
th hig
rld tha t was bo th in love wi
wo
l
era
lib
neo
in
a
r
angg
spr~n
n only sp
of sense. Bu t
ovati
tioon
the assum pti on tha t innova
ck on rhe
stuCk
telyy snI
to
as
ent
rhat see me d complerel
em
fer
and tha
so
dif
was
fit. Stallm an's app roach ~s
it of profit,
rsu
pu
ed
dri
ter
ed
fet
titl
icle
un
rhe
art
cle
from
rt'd did run an ani
issuuee in 1993, Wired
ond iss
hor
auttho
ch. TIle aU
ost invisible. In its sec
ch,
be almosr
llm
tiz ed Sta an's approa
summariz
y
eR
efly
bri
t
df
tha
lle
d~ro
Sta
t
lle
St;lllm
llman Sta
~Is Sta
mi ses no (0
-Is
people sho uld eve r make pro
t
rha
nk
tha
rhi
thi
't
~I
don
an,
n, -,
llm
ma
Sta2l1
otes ST
quOte
qU
rhe article discussing
hal1ff of the
se to h:L
s
clo
nd
spe
n
the
~
and
or,
ghb or,
witthh the ir neighb
rhe article
n,": the
dow
sha re wi
wn
bave bogged do
to hav
. "Things seem ro
ort
's
eff
:m
s
an'
Sm
llm
h
TIle
Sta
wir
th
problems wi
wi th financing,. Th
produ cti on and pro blems
lre
rw;
re
twa
sof
in
;lys
lt
del
ays
aduulr
:.Id
tes, no tin g
staltes
Sto
rime, is that of the knowing
red at the tim
\Vi
~Vi
t
of
tl:x
xt
con
nte
the
CO
in
ts, it
ly
gestS,
latrly
partic
icuula
iclee sugges
tone, pan
.articl
cess here, the art
tic child. If the re is any suc
alis
ide
ort .
an
pp
s
of
Su
aki
ng
spe
Cygnu
t[ Stallman's programs, like
to suppo rt
to
s
on
eff
e
t
tur
ofi
for
Fu
-pr
a
w
Saw
is in the
rS Alive Sa
meers
mm
graI11
St Progr:l
eSt
;m:
Greeat
Gr
the
of
ne
~O
ed,
st
titl
mu
sub
r
re;lde
der
Th e article is
ity,~: the rea
In.~"R
eality
~"Real
en Realir
ality Se t In,
Th en
are Was Free. 111
ftw
All
So
a naive
is
\,\,/
e
lrin
g
her
sh;
rin
V\'
nu rke
rket; sha
est, pro fit, and the ma
of self-interesr
rld
wo
the
e; the
is
her
see
um
e,
ass
\'e on, no thi ng to s..:e
mO\'('
denin to mo
read":
its rea
ing
tell
teU
ect
eff
s
in
wa
wu
red
\Virtd
ideal. ~Vi
sm of sta rt-up s.
aliisln
uriial
eneeur
entrep
eprren
ion is all in the rom ant ic enn
actcion
ml's adm on ition
:.Ic
ss com mu nit y too k Wired
ine
bus
;lS
the
as
yea
rs,
, tho se wi th
In the nex t few )'ea
fi)'y int o the stock bubble
nom
.an ecollof
erican
Americ
the
ed
ng
plu
and
rt
to hea
ur the ir bus iness, while
Went abo ut
erlyr we
quiied
y" manrra qu
nom
my
no
w
eco
~ne
ew
er
~n
the
our
ut
;lb
do ub ts abo
lds, and ma ny oth cr
rva.lds
an, Torva
Sr;ll!m
llm;ln,
m rush. Sta
rco
tco
do
the
at
ple
y
hel
ssl
sigg and Boyle
Lesssi
looking on
likee Le
s. Sc ho lar s lik
tinkering wi th the ir system
ued
ed
tin
inu
con
com
ers
jus
eng
ine
cng
simati on to tify ret hin krhe new technological situ
use the
ro
to
ys
mwa
for
g
loo
kin
ochers enaJnkep t
en s and oth
TIle Ha ub ens
ieq'.. Th
;lnd sociery
ur law 3n
ut
abo
s
ple
ir
nci
the
pri
g
cor
e
ing som e
ts kep t pro mo tin
rOOts
et's roo
ar the interner's
nrs
at
nts
me
mo
an
ari
lllu
nit
rhe com mu
med completely
see:me
ore d of the
But the world still se..
lf.
lf,
itse
et
ern
int
on
the
ces
often
es
St ofT
practi
CtiC
mo sr
m;lrk
vision, 1ll0
rkeett pT2
:lnd ma
to rise, and
e stock ma rke t con tinued to
ts.
Th
rs,
ma
rke
ore
of
red
bef
nev
er
ces
plalces
ena mo
sfully in p1:
world, appearing succes
rated wildly across the
telecomm unicaproliferar
like
rie
s
China and in ind ust
and
a
ssi
Ru
like
e
le
lik
ted
ht possib
rhoug hr
ged
d the regulatcd
tho
rogg..:
p-frog
e rapidly leap-f
ph
on
e
bil
.:
bil.
mo
en
td
riv
rke
t-d
marke
tions, where the ma
ts of the world. Th e ma ny
parns
lll;lny
ny pa.
teleph
ph on e systems in m3
tde
line
e
lin
d
ely
lan
y
gel
ow
ned
ed larg
teor sta
Tllet, therefore, rem ain lar
inteern
;lSpec
eCttss of the int
3Sp
y
tar
rie
rop
np
l
his
et's
no
and crucia
tile Haubens , the intern
likee the
s of tho se lik
ort
eff
t
bes
the
te
ed
of
ol\'ed
lt tha t involv
pnlel
ent
ignored. In spi
many aspects of its develo pm
rhe m3
ent, the
.~
ces
s had
suc
ces
suc
tory of nonprofit dev elopm
rap
id
its
ch of irs
t1lUch
th;ltt mu
the fact tha
r;lte openness, rhe
iher.lt
dcl
ibe
del
notof
s
ld
nor
ree
s
deg
iou
cou
var
:ll1d design: all these details
uct ure and
ng
str
mi
lco
we
en,
irs
op
h
its
wir
to do wit
to
0$.
mss of the early 1990S.
!msi;l
siusm
entthu
are the fog of the ma rke t en
penetr.lle

",

ty
rhe Problem of Properry
:l.Ild the
gr.lmmer, and
rhe Expressive Progr.t
rce. the
Souw~,
Open Sou

t. crosoft's, dorni.nance w:u Stilll

m of M icr ost.ofMi
mmer h
t
m the po int
gallmg fro
d [0 believe tha
int of view 0of ttheI' pro gra
wanteTh
w 0 itio
ble,
'
g;llling from the po
d
n. e stock bub
..
Ik
ogn
ing
rec
eth
of
som
ing
llg
S
le
erv
rvl
W;!
bb
bu
ese
des
ing
rt
mm
I caart
Th e srock
pro gra
oglllnon.
S sOlllcthing like
ic
. d . ho ut rec
programming WOl
.ive of the rOmanric'
narr;lt
theh
ld no t hh:lve exl
witthour t
d
e seen, cou
Wi
exi
ste
antall
as w..: hav
r
:.IVe
thewirom
no
ld
of
cou
tve
n,
rat
see
nar
ut
e
e
tho
hav
we
off
11'
as
l to take
uld nor h3ve beell com
ur all
compelling enougl
withope
gra mm er; it wo
to rake offthe
pro
ug h ich
would not have beenI'k
ho of
mg eno
pe
programmer; itelwh
~ered
g"
ell,
h off
P'o
css
h'
o
dre
her
An
se
~s
reb
like
dr
of
pe of
ers
s
An
ho
e
tale
mm
I
dle
mmer'S
Ie ou ere d the
n, wess
s of rebel-hero prohgra"h
.
and rebellion. Yet,
h pu rsu
ion
r:the. tale
.
xpr
f-e
alt
we
fof
sel
it
of
it
rsu
Yet
sU
pu
e%pressiOn and rebellion,em
Witll tthee pur
ruslng the
of wealth \lIt
.
l over the Op t_,
fusing rhe pu rsu itgre
ntro
r.
CO
irs
M
.
Sed
d
eOI
sed
sse
incr
rea
y
operarsofrtt onl Inc
1990S pro ssed,' MiICr
cro
OSO
as the
ntrol Overothe
Its CO
Netscapes
d _L'
.as the 1990S progre
" inroads int
m;lric
by "" 6 starte
dra
g
and
d
t
kin
rke
ap"
ma
<m
d
tse
ma
miU
Ne
tem
o
ne
inr
sys
s
199
mg system m;lrket and by
;!tl C mr oad IB M and Apple
. COtam
ing
k
like
s rk
r;lriOn
w
rpo
.
bro
et
po
ern
cor
int
jor
et.
the
pl'
h
lrk
Ma
of
Ap
m;
et,
er ma r
s arc of the int ern et browsser
IBM
ons
rom
ce.
nanand
share
domi
t'sI'e
h c_
sofft'
h'
cro
Mi
b
of
e
(0'

f.,c
ng
the
p;
ofM
e
in
~s
lac
es
;lth
e
Eo unndd [he
mseh' gasping for bre
rear In t I
minance,
ICrosa ons do
fou themseh'es edl inter_
'
. between
er th, d
' aSSOc.iati
e's
tUt
inter_
tur
Cll
cul
too k to Sev
r
nr
ma
nan
we en theeker
mi
am
Wh ar i[
bet
do
n
the
atlO
er
0Cl
Sev
3SS
to
cs
k
roo
tin ers
ir
at
ow
L.
Wh
fell
and
s
rk
rld
tv;
ma
Id
To
r.al
4,
To
libe
199
tin ker ets
ux.
x By 19
Inu
net and the neo
rke..,t was Lin
san d feIlo w
_
94, Otva wh
neoliberal ma
'- _ .
.net and the
' could be com
h ere it
int
"'rann
po
O"
.
the
new
ir
th
nel
to
the
l
ker
'rne
be COm.
ved
II.C
ld
tem
pro
Im
cou
It
sys
uin
g
ere
er:
II'
op
m[
r/lew
po
e
;lre
ir
ved dle
te SO!Tw
.
im
'pro
' k to makke a rathher effective complere
'J ns
har d S,-oull
hware
bme d With Ric
comple sO
ma
III an's wo rrk
er effective fes
rat
a
Richard Sta
e
s. On me
.
nal
sio
bined with ich
pro
k
rloo
are
to
tw
an
sof
IT
beg
me
s
e
SO
the
system, wh ich began to look attractive to som 0 ware proressionals. yOn
systcm, wh was a familiar 'y
. ers ;llread workd engine
,enced
eri
c
U:p
exp
ny
ma
wo
d, ir
y
to
m
ead
rem
one hannd,
alr
ste
sys
rneersercame some rkof
nce eng
it was a familiar ived fi
U .ix. OnOe
.one .Ila
er, it
oth
. Ov rcame som e of
der
the
s
h
wa
it
as
the
Un
.a,
On
m
arc
fro
rhe
IllX
d
ive
1I1g III
rom
der
ove
s
It
wa
it
er,
as
at
a,
ing
{"
ing in the are OCiated with I
" g fr;l
Unix into compet ing
. nn off U
.r atio
meellt
blems aSS ared with trhe
stin rraggm
exilsrm
le eX
int o com pet .
t h e pro
0 nix
.o
ltan
Eo
>
.
the problems associ
II
" .it allowed forrea
d improvement
ker'ing and
y ,tink
was 0"'
eassy
ause it
.
C(l
s, and ,, bec
n,
OW
ope
a
s
Systems,
,lt
wa
,.n
ng an improvement
ause it
In eoim
the
.id tcchhni
system
(rap
II anduxbec
'ad of
F
calI' provementss at
gh ;l period
ou
.
thr
nt
tec
we
pld
the
lOI
at
Lin
0
y,
ent
mOl.
provem
llt through a pe o
r
a Im
Illcbec
. nance
Finally. LillUX Wecro
ame $0 complete rha
t' g system d
eratin
Opua
mima
soft's
doam
n be
t Mi
te rhaitt
ple
e tha
tem
com
op
sys
so
t's
e
samee tim
mg
sof
cam
cro
Mi
ce
t
where
time tha
h t was merel
,sam Id
good enoughh'in areas
ease softw re tdla
it
ord to rel
as where
ar was me relyyg00d enoug In areetit
lr cou ld aff
rele;lse softwaarc
ion, like
mp
it cou. afford tofoc
CO
had
it
h
.
ere
irs
wh
h
us
are
as
d omlllated and focus irs vas
etition, liket
V;lSrt resources on boo .11' ere It ad Cos mp
dOlllin;lted and
tit
Winddow 95 would no
up W;
g'e ,COnSUmer booti
ng
era
;l\'
e
Th
t.
g
rke
tm
m3
er
uld no_t
r.lg
er
ws
;lve
bro
Um
e
10 Oil'S 95 wo
up ing
hni
. beg
rile..: l browser marker. Thr enoinee onS
h ever. dId
wi,th
h sheer tec
Jke
inn
;
"
ute
did
beg
_
'
mp
Co
.
r
how
ice COmptlter eng
er techniof
,
ers
she
ow
ine
t
rs,
J Y not
WI
g
O'
m
n
"l I1
ly nor
limitations
. ice. fOr Linux co led
like
cal
hni
tec
the
h'
th
wi
ce
th
J
h
of
,ali
ns
allllo/
to ann
oy anc e wir
pled to
Q ad ml rat ion for Linux cou
e tC'C IlIc all im ita tio
up
ry was
r;lrion
;ldmi
cal
.
the moralJ of thi's sto
y'" n b
whar th
er wh
nd
are the
wo
was
M
to
er
ry
nd
an
frs sof tw
sto
wo
beg
to
thIS
ICroso
n
the
of
y
ega
re,,dle
e n f c..
at e mo ra
on.
Cti. on
h softs softwa
fiMicro
prodU
tion
are
<:a
rw
alli
sof
.
org
of
l
ic
ctI
tiol
du
nom
:o:a
pro
eco
ani
e
are
org
t
or the economic
0 SOrrw
for
c S.
fly n;lmed Eri
Th '
aU
ich
mmer and gad
wh
S.
t in
tel(
Un'ix prograra
med Ericiv_
con
a
:
n:J
rh..
ich
s
fly
wh
wa
gad
in
IS
[
and
tel(
er
mm
con
ogl ;lnd the: Baza;lr," which he del
This was thc an CSS2y cal let rT h ~'l(:r
dra
iv_
ote
the
del
wr
d
ich he ond
Ra ym on
<:aar; wh
an essay calledes ine" Ca31' eddnJh',nhd the Baon
Raymond wrote
nt wto
we
culate bey
conferenc
ich
ecir
wh
d
;ln
C
7
l
gra mm ing
199
w
in
n
es
a
be)'Ons,d
ered at pro
enc
7
fer
9
cul
Cir
on to
. sntand
r lawyer
ghate
yri
ered' at programming con
cop
i ss executive
bu
ke
rh
of
s
y,n
ice
law
off
t
ine
gh
the
yri
bus
o
int
cop
key
et
of
aad
ern
.e Int
offices
cutives
,the
o the ftd at'
Y s ness exe
int ern et intun
was passed aroun
ide
I
arr
.
d sh .
is
111
'
gy.
Th
gy
d at
Str
ate
un
srr
rate
initiating a gro
aro
e
COrpo
po rat
in cor
s passed uary 199
d shiIft In
IS artlc e wa
8.
.
initiaring a gro un
N
in Jan
'.
er
d
ws
its
bro
to
its
b
-up
.
rce
run
sou
rc
en
the
sau
8,
y 199
et5C.ape in the run -up to its dec
uarera
ISJonn to op b
":Cisio
in Jan
set
row
g
Its
tin
e
.
in
op
n
ape
ltio
tsc
'd to base Its
Ne I
N
uld ddecide
irs ncxt gener: .
ple wo
t, Ap
ase
er rha
g
to
tin
c
uld
era
ongg aft
wo
eel
op
n
Ott lon
ple
tio
Ap
era
t,
gen
tha
uld
t
er
wo
nex
s
aft
tem
No
d IB
on, and
sy
ati
and Stln Microsys
nd
fou
IBM
rce
uld
sou
wo
on
en
s
ati
op
nd
tem
an
sys
fou
m on
Ste
Su n Micro ies like Red
M. and
on an open Source
tem
~a;
sYS
at
ux-based compan
a key str
d
rci ng as
;ltegy. So on , Lin
op en sou
Str
key
ado pt
a
as
sed Companies lih Re
ng
-ba
rci
ux
sou
,' gs. OOn, Lm
adopt op en ome stock rna
""',
ddar
,k"
lin
t
rke
ma
bec
ar lIlgs.
Ha t would
e was stilr
blem of Microsof . Ml cro sof ts do mm anc
proble
elle pro
ed the
ained
~Ut
remain
e tha
re rem
there
But the
(h
of
er who wanted ro believ

~The

'57

perty
Proper
of Pro
d~
blem
Proble
ty
g=
rhe Pro
m of
mm
Progr:l
ive Pm
Il u,e
ressive
r,2.and
Express
meer,
Op
die Exp
rce:,. dIe
Sourc..
en Sou
Open

Ir is significant that the arguments of"The Cathedral and the Bazaar" are nOt
communitarian. In COntrast with Stallman or the Haubens, Raymond dismisses
appeals to altruism our of handY The central rhetorical accomplishment of the
piece rather is to frame voluntary labor in the language of the market: the core
trope is to portray Linux-style software development like a bazaar-the arche_
type of a competitive marketplace-whereas more centralized and controlled
software production is portrayed as hierarchical and centralized-and thus inefficient-like a cathedral: static, inefficient, medieval. (While Raymond seems to
have had previous effons in the Unix world in mind when describing cathedral_
style software development, it is a safe bet that many readers thought of Microsoft.) Raymond thus disarticulated the metaphor of the market from conven_
tional capitalist modes of production and reconnected it with a form of voluntary
labor, of labor done for its own sake.
Parr of what makes this curious reversal work is Raymond's focus on program_
mers' motivations. For an essay about such a dry and technical topic as the management of software development. there's an awful lor of reference to the internal
feelings, psychological makeup, and desires of programmers. (Subsequent discussion of open software seems to have maintained some of this focus.)" Almost
like a hip ElJtwicklullgsromllll, Raymond presents a first-person account of his
own experiences in software development, during which he tells the story of how
he became converted to the Linux software model. This narrative of personal revelation is interspersed with numbered principles or aphorisms, the first of which
is: "Every good work of softwllre starts by scratching a developer's personal iteh."'..
Because Raymond's audience is in the worlds of business and law, he immediately
sets out to reconcile his psychologically tainted portrayal of motivation with a
utilitarian one. "The 'utility function' Linux hackers are maximizing," Raymond
continues, "is not classically economic, but is the intangible of their own ego satisfaction and reputarion among other hackers." Raymond goes on to draw analogies with fan subculrnres, wherein the enhancement of reputation among the
other members of the community is understood as a key motivation.10
Much of the piece is devoted to explaining why a wide-open approach to software development involving frequent bortowing and sharing of code, early and
frequem releases ofupdates that have the effect of involving users in development,
and attention to maintaining positive social relations among participants all combined in the case of Linux to create better software. But it's crucial to the essay's
effect that Raymond frames the motivation to write software as something born
of a not entirely rational fascination or ambition (an itch), of a desire to have one's
accomplishments recognized not with money but with the psychological satisfactions of acclaim. One could of course criticize this as both an empirical description and as a philosophical argument, but what's significant is, first, how the dream
158

Open Source, rhe Expressive Programmer, and the Problem of Propert}'

of having one's "itch," one's inner passions, acknowledged by a community of the

like-minded is a characteristically romantic structure of feeling and, second, how
much Raymond's statement of the problem, whether Ot not it is philosophically
coherent, resonated with the computer culture at large and had some impact on
the larger business culture in a way that communirarian or managerial arguments
have not. In the minds of quite a variety of people, this vision of passionate programmers provides a much more appealing way to deal with the perennial industrial problem of monopoly than something like industrial policy or antitrust law.
Raymond publicly presented 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar in September
1997, atter which the essay began to circulate. At the time, the execucives at the
Nerscape corporation, after riding high on the early srock bubble, had been sensing doom. In 1997, they had been watching Microsoft's share of the web browser
market rise from negligible to almost half of the market, while Netscape was
making almost no income and Microsoft's profits ttom its other software was setring records." So in January 1998, they announced they would publish the source
code for the browser for free distribution, and in February they invited Raymond
and several others to a meetillg to help them plan their new strategy. Those in
attendance at tbe meeting saw this as an important opportunity to get rhe corPOtate community to take the free software community seriously and rewards
that end chose to follow a pragmatic path of using the term 0P~rJ source software
(instead of Stallman's term fre~) and of emphasizing technical advantages rather
than ideals-which qualifies as an act of rhetorical genius. A few weeks later,
Raymond and others would found the Open Source Initiative to suppOrt these
efforts, and the organization would be involved in strategy shirrs at Apple, IBM,
and other companies." Today, Linux and other forms of open source software are
central to many different businesses world wide and can be found on everything
from cell phones re massive research computers. If one had predicted this chain
of events in 1994, one would have been dismissed from almost all directions as
hopelessly naive.
The argument here is not that this single essay by itself directly caused major
corporations to adopt new strategies; rather, Raymond's essay helped promulgate a way of understanding software development that played a key role in the
corpotate shift.1c was a necessary but not sufficient part of the conditions of posSibility of the move towards open sorrware. Of course, these companies had an
eConOmic interest in the new strategy, especially given the MicrosofT monopoly.
But the economic conditions behind the change had been in existence for several
rears; an economic explanation alone cannot explain why these companies made
their policy changes all within a roughly one-year period (1998).
In different times, open source might have seemed unremarkable; when Bell
Labs gave up its patents on the transistor as a result of a consent decree in the
H

159

Open Source, rhe Expressive Programmer, and rhe Problem of Propert}'

[950S, this was viewed as a reasonable solution to a:1 complex problem, not
nor egre1950s,
/irst half
halfof
sometheft, But
Bur in the first
gious theft.
of the 1990S, paying for labor that produced son1e_
:IW:1y for free would havc
thing that could only be given away
have been considered deeply
modes( as it was-marked a
irradonal.
irrational. In 1997, the embrace of open source-as modest
U.S, poljtical
pol ideal economic thinking in the
profound shift in the common sense of u.s.
the open source movement, the neoliberal
high-tech
realm, After the arrival of the
hightech realm.
assumption that more-property-protection-is-better
more-properry-pro(eetion-is-berter was no longer un;llss;llilable.
unassailable,
usumption
happen? Traditional economic reuoning
reasoning does offer expla_
So how did this happen~
nations of why ;lIa company might use
usc open source software.
software, A consumer device
n;lltions
Tivo makes its money
mOlley seiling
selling devices, not software, so using
manu&cturer
m;llnu&cturer like Tiro
nOt only because the
(he software is free
ftee but because its open
Linux makes sense not
Tivo to euily
easily modifY
modify it according (0
to its needs and to draw on
character allows Tiro
characrer
the global support of the Linux community,
rhe
community. Companies like Red Hat or IBM
can m.ake
make .aa solid profit by offering technic:ol
suppOrt to
to companies using their
c.an
technical suppon
soltw..1re, while .allowing
:.lllowing the software
softw:.lre itself to be freely
fredy copied and shared.
shared, And
.softw.are,
l:.lte 1990S did, with the huge
faced, as many high-rech
high-tech companies in the
thc late
when f.aced,
taking:.la gamble
g:.lmble on open .source
source soft
softm:nket power of a company like Microsoft, taking
m.arket
W:.lre might have
h:.lve seemed like the only alternative.
altemative, The only w.ay
W:.lY [0
to compete with
W2re
thn wu
was free [0
to consumers and
:lnd
Microsoft's market power was to offer a platform th:olt
that, beC2Use
because of its free .and
and open character,
front among
m;llt,
characrer, could creare
create a united fronc
Microsoft's competitors.
competitors,
rusons for turning to open source cOInnot
cannor explain why the
But these economic re250ns
factors were in place in 1994,
[994,
happened when it did.
did, All of these economic f.aetors
shift h.appened
yet 1\0
Rirted with the idea of open software at
and ret
no major company even briefly f1ined
unti! the fall
f.111 of 1997, with the circulation
essay,
the time,
time. It was not until
circularion of Raymond's es~y,
that
the
idea
could
even
begin
to
get
attemion,
and
then
in
1998
and
1999
the
thOit
to
anention,
all of
mainstream, It took
rook Raymond's :ltticuconcept .all
of.aa sudden became relarively
relatively mainsrre.am.
amcubtion of free software
individualist struCture
structure of feeling-and
teding-;lI\d
softwOlre within ;lI:\ rom:\nric
rom.antic individu.a.list
Iarion
its
appearance .against
against the bOickdrop
backdrop of the Microsoft problem-to lOly
lay the condiitS .appe.ara.nce
idea,
tions for m.ainstrum
nlainstrearn .acceptOince
acceprance of the ide.a.
11le .accept.ance
acceptance was not inst.antaneous,
instantaneous, of course, and as of this writing is
The
Libertarianism of whatever v;],riety
variety is premised on the ide;a
ide:e of
not universal. LibenariOillism
f.1ith
pri\'ate
property, 2nd
and so it is nor surprising that many of the libertarian
privOite propeny,
liben;arian faith
at first s<offed
ar
open
source,
For
example,
in
late
1998,
once
open
source
had
scoffed at
source.
gained some
sorne .:mention
rhe media, Wayne Crews of the
rhe Competitive Enteranention in the
movemenr (as part of
prise Institute
Instimre published a critique
cririque of the open source movement
a series titled "C:\spin: An Occ;asional
CXcasional Commentary
Commenr:ery on Regulation of High
Perspective~). Arguing that
thar "like
~Iike
Technology-From an Undiluted Free Market Perspective").
nOt a way
w:ey to
ro run
nm the world,"
world,~
free love, open-source code is fun, but it's probably not
wrOte that,
Crews wrote
160

Opcn
lhe Expressive
E~prusive Progr.nnmer,
Programmer, and
Property
Open Source, rhe
~nd lhe
rhe Problem of Properey

for the
most pan:,
rhe prospect"
ofbuoming
deliire to
rhe mosr
part, the
prospect of
becoming fabulously wealthy,
wealrhy, not the desire
ro
give things away,
so~are innovation, Nearly all"fruware
aJl"frtew,tre" programsprogramliawa)', drives som:..are
editors, games, or browsers-pale
btowsers-pale beside
be,ide superior
liuperior
whethet word processors,
wherher
proceuors, image
ima~ edirors,
commercial veuions.
versions. Even
E""n Netscape's
Nets<:ape's release
rdease of the
Jot.lree code
coUe for N~'~g~ror
NavigatorcommerciOiI
rhe sourer
applauded by the opensource
open-source advocates-wasn't a fumumenul
fundamental embl':lce
embrace of
applOluded
rheir doctrine,
docrtine, bur
but an effon
effort ro
to creare
create a pipeline
pi~line for offering orher,
orhet, more
mOte profi[:lble
pro~table
their
services, Conveniently ignored also was rhat
thar rhe
tbe NeTicape
giveaway occurred after
seTl'ices..
Nerscape g;,,,awOIy
rhe 11'0
rhal made mulrimmionaires
multimillionaires out of iu
founduJ,"
the
[PO thar
irs founders."
circumspect, Bill G:ltes
Gates and Steve Ballmer
ar differOther critics were even less circumspect.
Ballmer:lr
communisr about
abOUt Linux."
Linux," Forbes
ent times insinu;ated
insinuated that there is something communist
maga:;:ine scoffed at the open software -movclnent's
"movement's usual public im.age
image of happy
maga.;:ine
the''lnternationale'
Internationale' while freely sharing
proles linking.arms
linking arms ;and
and singing rhe
software prolts
their rode-writing
code-writing labor:
labor,~"
the fruits of meir
came ;across
across as shrill and tinged
ringed with despera.tion.
desperation, They
111ey
But such dismissals GlIne
e:erlier in rhe
the same
urne
hOlvc had anier
did not have the same kind of force that they might have
was a01 technically sophisriC2ted
sophisticated operating system that
thar in .some
some condecade. Here W:.LS
products, As Windows users grew :ectUStexts seemed better than Microsoft's products.
accustomed to the "blue
~blue screen (If
of death"-the
death~-the end result
resulr of a system ct:lsh
in
Wincrash
[nid-1990S-the sheer technical quality of
dows, a frequent occurrence in the mid'I990S-the
glaring refutOition
refurarion of one of the centra.l
cemral claims of the
Ihe neoliberal
Linux stood as a guring
w:es better
bener software cre.ared
created lVilhom
lI';t/'(ll4t
argumenr about imellecmal
;argument
imellecroal property; here was
the incentives of property protection.
protecrion, And, ;after
after elevating disheveled programStatuS of cultural heroes in the nrlier
earlier 1990s-remember
thar it was
mers to the status
1990S-remember that
strategy to foreground its young progra.mmers
programmers :.LS
as opposed
Netscape's publicity srra.tegy
managers-the culture found it was exaccl)'
exactly those heroes who
who were now
to its manOigers~the
increasingly celebrating something
sometlling that seemed to
to poim
point in
ill:e01 very
vcry different
diflcrellt direcWir~cI, one h.ad
h:ld
tion, In the intellectual space crtated
cre:lted by readers and writers of Wired,
tion.
recogni:;:e in Raymond's rendition of open source much of the
the: same
S;\rlle Byronic
to recognize
t(l
m:ega:;:ine's rheroric
rhetoric in its earliest
e;trliest d;ays;
days; scoff
scoff;tt
that had driven the magazine's
attraction mar
at open
source and you might stan
start to
to look like one ofJohn Perry Barlow's dinosaurs, one
didll't get
ger it. 11,e
W;lS tOO alluring to
of the old suits who didn't
The romance
rom;al\ce of open source was
t:.lught the culture that this might not
nor be a
ignore, and the previous few Ye:lrs
yatS had nught
trend; the
rile romOintic
romantic allure of the hacker
Ilacker had aire'ldy
already influenced
inRucnced the global
Reeting [rend;
way of its role in the stock bubble.
bubble,
economy
eConomy by wOly
lhe
poim of view is often revealed, not
nOt JUSt
jusr in the
fUll intellectual
imellcctual structure of a point
The full
srarementofhigh
but in what people define as pragmatic-in those moments
statemem ofhigh ideals, bur
m:eke compromises, to
to take a
when someone claims that it is time to be sensible, to make
middle road. So, for example, in response to Wayne Crew's marker-based
dismissal
market-based
of open
liben:arian Esther Dyson offered :ea p:eth
row:erds reconciling
Open source, fellow libertarian
path towards
wrote,
with the mm'emem.
movement. "There's a fundamental misundersr:lI\ding
misunderstanding here."
here;' she WrOte,

or

m:m

161
16J

Progl'::l.mmt.f, and rhe

tht. Problem of Property
Open Source, lhe
rhe Expressive
Expressive: Programmer,

Opcn source
SOU!'C( softw~rc
software: may
b( fredy
fre:dy ~~ilable,
availabl(, but somwn(
'is responsible
ruponsible for it.
il.
Open
m~y be
someone 'is'
Most
lhe support for OS sOhware
lofrware: is paid
p3id for;
th~t's how (many of) the hackers'
h~ekcti
MOSI of the
for, that's
arc funded. 11lcte
il a lor
value-~nd money-floating
money-f1oaring around the
paychecks are
There is
lot of niue-and
OS, And yes,
rei, NCTscapc's
Neneap('s UK
of OS to
ro make
mah irs
orher Sl:'mcrs
s(l'Vk(s attractive
world of OS.
uSt: ofOS
i[S other
unsibl( blUiness
husin(JI model
modeL ...
.. , (It scems
I((ms to
ro lIle
is a legitimate, acknowl(dged
acknowledged and sensible
me
lh~t there are
arc religious
re:ligio\ls uTremiStS
CJ(trclIlisu On
on both
bolh sides of wh:lt
whal ought to be an argument
that
businus modds,
",odds, not morality.)"
about businclS
years earlier
If twO ye.us
urlier Dyson felt con1fortable
comfortable stating that the market simply"works
simply ~worlu
and is monl;
moral;' no.....,
now, in her mind, it was time to move aw.:ay
away from blanket st.lU:_
SUte_
.:and

ments .lbout
about monlity.
mOr.llity. Now it was about business models, about being sensible,
ment.S
:.tbout striking:.t
tone of moderation
moder:.ttion would allow someone of
.:about
striking a middle path. 111is
This lOne
to maintain
m:aintain .la friendly public st.lnce
stance towards open source.
soutce,
Dyson's convictions lO
But that tone of moderation would also allow the loosening of the link
between the romantic view of individual freedom and market libertarianism. For
than a decade, it bcc.tme
became possible in business culture to
the first time in more th.ln
g1amotous position of rebellious high rech
Tech while also supposing that,
seize the glamorous
nOTwithstanding. pcrh.lpS
perhaps there is an altern.ltive
alternaTive to the marker.
markee
Thatcher norwithst:lllding.

Slaslldot and "Code

"Cocle Is Law"
LawN
Slashdot
late 199OS,
1990S. the website Slashdot did for open source what Wiud
Wirt'd magaIn the hue
zine did for computer
entrepreneurialism
in
the
e:lrly
19905.
Created
compurer entrepreneurWism
me early 1990S. Cre.lted in 1997
Linux enrhusi:lst,
part-time commercial website developer Rob
by Linw:
enthusiast, student, and pan-time
Malda.,
Slashdot e\'Olved
evolved from a small website
website for listing
liuing .lnd
and discussing
distussing techni
rethniMaida, Sluhdot
leading forum for open source
cal issues mixed with personal anecdotes into the lC.lding
enthusiasts. pl.lying
playing no small
~m;lll role in esr.lblishing
establishing a cultural tone for the mO\'e'
moveenthusiuts,
ment and
:md helping to communicate that
thar tone to the test
rest of the constantly expandSlashdot's tide
title banner describes
desctibes it uas ~News
"News for Nerds.
ing web-surfing world. Slashdor's
H
Matters (u
(as if in mockery of the self-confident grandiosity
grandiosiry of the New
Nrw
SruffThat Matters~
York Times
Ti"U5 subhud
subhead ~AlI
HAil the News That's
111at's Fit (O
to Print~).
Print"). CrC3ted
Created before b/ogging
bloggiug
entered the lexicon, Slashdot presented itself as self-consciously eccentric and :liS
as
eaeh frontan entry-point into a labyrinthine world; updated around the clock, e;l,Ch
p:llragraph of~news~
ofHnews" follOwed
Hsrory" on Slashdot consisu
followed by
by:Ul
consists of a shon
shorr paragraph
an
page ~Story~
:IIlways
ste:ldily growing train of postS
posu from reader/contributors. Scrolling is :Ia
always srC:;Idily
necc.ssary part
put of the experience, as is following links; the familiar slashdor-eITect
siashdot-effeci
necessary
refers to the highly predictable overloading of external web sites within minutes
l1
Slashdot stories.
ofSlashdot's
after their URLs are
ate posted in Slashdor
stories."
While much of
Slashdot's concow
tent concerns
open
software
fairly
directly-new
Linux
software
releases.
develCOncernS
opments in intellecrual
intellectual property law-a
l:lw-a good deal of the content is more general,
optnents
reflecting the interests
intereSts and spirit of its young coding-adept or Technologically
technologically
reRecting
162

Open Source,
rhe Expressive Programmer, and rhe
the Probl(m
Prop(ny
Source. the
Problem of Property

fascinated producers and readers: intriguing developments in science, reviews of

science-fiction films.
films, amazing things done with Lego.
before, much of the thrill of Slashdot comes from the
Like Wired several years before.
Slashdot reader, stand apart
ap:lrt from despised others
implication that you, the clever Slashdor
world-from the
ehe drones in suits who work for Bill Gates, for
fot example. The
TIle
in the world~from
implication, then, is that
ehat by reading Slashdot, you are part of a distinct cadre; the
community is very much defined in terms of its opponents. While enamored of
open source, the ethos is not particularly communitarian or somberly political. It
5wshdol derives from the keyboard comis perhaps not accidental that the term slashdot
mand"/."
that
takes
the
operator
to
the
root
direcrory
systems, a privilege
mand~/:
directory of Unix sYStemS,
o\'er a mulonly available to system operators with absolute superuser privileges over
techniul setup
sewp
tiuser system. It's a common command if you're fiddling with the technical
rype ~/.~
"/.H on a Unix comof a Unix system. But it's also about power. If you ean
can type
puter and get
gec to TOOt,
root, you can get into and modify anyones
anyone's account on the system.
purer
erase the entire hard
hard. disk, or read other people's email.
email, or
You can do things like er.:ase
change their passwords. You are, in tbe
the narrow world of that computer, omnipoSlashdot feels more like a b:lnd
Quaker meeting.
tent. Sluhdor
band of misfit heroes than a Quller
While
me
open
software
movement
had
been
quietly
gestating.leg:ll
gcsaong.legal intellectuW'hiIe the
intellectual
als like Lessig and James Boyle had been exploring the intersection of intdkctual
way to bring fundamental
fi.lndamental questions about
property concerns with the internet as a w.ay
about
the law into broader
recognition. Boyle, for example.
example, moved from law journal articles
broaderreoognition.
about theories oflcgal
oflegal interpreuoon
interpretation to a series of pieces about internet issues such
intellectual propertY.
property. Well schooled in me
the debates
debatCll about
as privacy, censorship, and intellecrual
the ambiguities and limits of the caregory
:luthorship, Boyle tended towards
me
category of authorship,
an emphasis on the limits and blind spots of a scricrly
strictly individualist, rights-bued
rights-based
approach to law and technology. Early in his areer
C;lreer he pubJish~-d
published an essay on the limide:l of individual
individu:ll subjectivity, bringing Foucaults
Foucault's critique of the subject
its of the idea
criticallcgal
idea of subjectivity itself is an unsuble
unstable
into critical
legal theory by showing how the idu
so In his 1996 Sll4lrlUlIl5,
category, an effect rather man
than cause.
C:luse."In
S/'ammls, Sojtv.'Qu,
Softwan:, Illll!
Spluns he
category.
and SplallS
dCllcribed
[he ~
usc ofthe
of the romantic author construct in intellecrua1
intellectual properry
property hw
law as an
described rhe
author ideology~
ideology" that blinded its adherents to the often collective sources ofcultural
"aumor
assumptions of
innovation. In 1997, he published an essay criticizing the underlying :lSsumptions
\Virrd-sryle digitalliberrarianism;
digital libertarianism; c:tlling
calling for an internet analogue to
[0 the environWiud-sryle
mental mOl'ement
movement that
mat rocuses
focuses on the srructures
structures :and
srrictut'CS ofemerging intellecintdlecand strictures
rua.J. property regimes, he has sought in various ways ro
to emphasize
impomnce of
rual
emph;l,size the importance
actively supporting the public domain and sh:lred
broadly.1t In
ill general,
shared culture more broadly.'9
to what he portrays
he pointed towards kinds of civic republicanism as an antidote [0
as the blinkered
blinkcred and short-sighted radical righrs-based
rights-based individualism that motivated
both trends in intellectual property law and much of the thinking about the internet
there is more to lif~
life than
dlan Emerson's autonomous .selfafter
t990S. Maybe There
selfafter all.
in the 1990S.
16j
163

Open Source. the Expressive Prognmmer.

th( Problem of Property
Programmer, and the

Larry Lessig
Le~~ig st:med
started our
Out on a similar trajectory, moving from theories of legal
interpretation into the worlds of internet law and intellectual property,
ptopetty, similarly
simibrly
tights can be as constraining
bringing with him a sharp sense of the way that legal rights
freting. Lessig's best known book, Coele
Lilli'S ofCjbe:roj Cybcr_
Code IWel
alld Olhcr
Other UlI4'S
as they ,an
can be freeing,
Spll((,
maneuvet; by pointing to
space:, is
i.s based on what looks like a classic legal realist maneuvct;
anivities-in this case, coding-one
the regulatory character of various private activities-in
undetmines the common assumption th:u
thar narrowly defines freedom as the oppooppo_
its hands off
site of government action. A simple demand that government keep irs
Ilis internet-fascinated
internet-f:ueinated readership, was
the internet, Lessig patiently explailled
explained to his
no guarantee that the internet would remain free. In this Lessig was in keeping
thM also inAuence:d
influenced Boyle,J:uzi,
of legal realism
~alism that
Boyle,Jaszi, and others.
with the tradition oflegal
nOt pursue the FouCluldian
Foucauldian critique of the
Unlike Boyle.
Boyle, however, Lessig did not
subject and its interest in the limits and conditions to the idea of a free
f~e individual.
free individual was scill
still very
jUst
Fot Lessig..
\'Cf")' much the goal; his ugumcnt
ugument JUSt
Lessig. the lTee
go\'ernment efforts could limit frccpoimed
pointed to the ways that privne
private as well as government
lTeedom. Open source software isM:.
is ~a check on arbitrary power. A structural
struCtural guarantee
of constiturionalized
constirurionalized liberty, it functions as
ali a type of separation of powers in the
substantil'(: protections,
American constitutional tradition. It stands alongside substantive
fundamental.~60 If
like freedom of speech or of the press.
ptess, but its
irs stand is more fundamental."'"
Boyle was calling for his readers
readets to abandon an obsession
obses.~ion with the :.bstract
abstract free
fTtt
start thinking more complexly aOOm
individual and Start
about the social conditions that
suppOrt innovation and culture,
tulture, Lessig presented the choice
stark
support
choice: as a simple.
simple, static
essay, ~An
':An Infonnation
Information Society: Free or Feudal:"'"
Feudal!"" \Vhile
\Nhile
titled one essoI.}"
one: Lessig tided
standing alongside Boyle in atueking
anacking the libertarian notion that markets and
m concede
private property are the sole guanntors
guarantors of freedom,
lTeedom, Lessig seemed to
liberrari:llls one thing thar
nor: the idea that freedom itself
that Boyle did not:
to the libertarians
consrraint, the ability of individuals to do
is a simple condition, an absence of constraint,
rheir creativity.
crearivity. Boyle
what they want, especially to express themselves,
themselH~s, to
to engage their
approached the romantic ideal of individualism skepriCllly.
skeprically. Lessig embraced
embnced it.
laSt decade of Slashdot poStings
postings for the name ~James
"James Boyle"
Boyle
A search of the last
turns up about fifty hitS.
hits. Le.s.sig
Lessig turns
rums up over one thousand.'
thousand." Lessig's large readproducr of many f.aCtors,
factors, not
nor leur
least of which are
arc his immense talent,
ership is the product
persistence, productivity, and characrer.
character. But he also writes and speaks in ways
thar
[Ilned ro
Sbshdor, for whom the free individual is
th:lt are c:lrefully
carefully tuned
to audiences likc
like Slashdot,
understood in romantic terms: as 110mcone
cre:nivcly expresses themselves,
themselves.
someone who creatively
often against the powers that be, and gets acknowledged for their accomplisharguably wise in asking his readers ro
obsessll'e
ments. Boyle is argu:tbly
to think be}'Ond
beyond an obscssil'e
focus on an abSttact
surtabstract individual freedom. Lessig..
Lessig, however, by choosing as a sraning point ro
individu;tlism and the utilito emphasize rhe
the gap between a romantic individualism
tarian one.
wirh a larger audience.
resonares with
one, has found a framework that resonates
H

164

Open Source. the Expressive Programmer,

Opcn
Programmer. and the Problem of Property
Properry

Conclusion
In a crisp essay, Milton
Milwn Mueller has neatly
nearly debunked the grandiose claims occasuppotrers and opponenrs
opponents of open source software,
sionally made by both the supporters
gelleral. Mueller argues for a more
rhat it is somehow a threat to
that
to capitalism in general.
pragmatic approach, which focuses on open source as a means to the end of indiitself.' This is entirely
reasonable, But the very
entirc:ly reasonable.
vidual freedom, nor
not as an end in itself!'
f.tct that Mueller can be effecrively
ro
effectively making that argument today is in part due to
fact
rhat became attached to
the romanticism, with all its grandiosity, that
to open source in
the second half of the
rhe 1990S
rhus propelled the phenomenon into the lime19905 and thus
wriring. the
rhe world of intellectual property law remains turbulight. As of this writing.
contesred. But this
rhis contestation matks
rhe
lent and contested.
marks a remarkable change from the
legal and political atmosphere of the early 1990S
1990s in which intellectual property
powet as inevitable and self-evident, as
expansion was imagined in the halls of power
not worth arguing about.
symp:lthetically expoundmovement, essays
essoI.ys symp:nherica.lly
Since the rise of the open source movemenr,
Lessig or
appeared in mairutream
mainstrt:l.n outlers
ing the ideas
idc:a$ ofsomeone like Les.sig
Ot Boyle have appured
induStries express an interest in
TIx EWllol/list."
&onomist." Business executives
execurh'cs in many industriC$
like ~
parem system. Ellen
Even the recording industry-once the
a major rethinking of the parenr
to
copyright
enforcement-is substantially softenleader in a hatdline
approach
hardline
major record
~cord labels, for example, are now offering much of
ing its position. Some ma.jor
theit coment
fot download in a noncopy-protected MP) format, an act that in
their
content for
1995 would have been seen as childish folly. Open source software is now underreasonable technical oprion
stood as a rea.sonable
option in many contexts
conrexts worldwide, and Linux
continues to
to quieti)'
quietly spread, running on servers at web search firms like Yahoo,
on cell phones made in China, 011
playets made in France, and on
011
OIl digital music pla.yers
personal computers sold at Wal-Mart. In 1999, the original romamic
romantic copyright
"in c.debnc.clebnprotectionist, Ted Nelson, open sourced the ongoing Xanadu project, ~in
tion of the success and vast human benefit of the Open Source movement:'
movement.....
ideas, moreO\'er,
moreover, has been
The language of open source and its associated ide:ls,
0J"1l to refer ro
other domains. The use of the term Optu
to nonprofit decenseized on in orher
seized
on
in
1997
by
a
handful
of programtralized efforts-the construction nrst
first
prognmmers
mus as they groped for a terminology that would help legitimate nonproprietary
practices to business management-is now spreading throughour
throughout the
software pncrices
rhis trend began in teelmical
1001, with much
polity. Not surprisingly, this
technical areas. In 1001,
rrend in higher education of trying to commerfanfare, MIT reversed the 1990S
[990S trend
cialize educational materials and courses on the web by announcing what it called
irs course materials
Open Courseware, an initiative
iniriative to pur
put ;ttl
:til of its
matetials online in a way
that was free of COSt
to the
rhe worldwide public. A group advocating
advoc;tting
cost and available ro
T:1dical
OP(/)
spectrum management
m:tn:tgement adopted the term Opell
radical new approaches to radio spenrum
165

Open Source,
Source. the Expressive Programmer,
Progr.lmmer, and the Problem of PrOperfy
Property

spectrum.
its first
nrSt line:
Sptlfrum. (A White Paper describing the approach echoes Barlow in iu
wrong.")" But the
"Almost everything you think
mink you know about specrrum
"AlmOSt
spectrum is wrong,~)"
juSt :about
about technology,
technology. AdVOC:l.tes
Advoc:uts
imo are2.S
areas where it is not just
trend has expanded into
decenrralized, gnssroou
grassroou politiea.!
political :action
action crow :about
aoout the rise ofMopen-source
of~open'source
of decentralized,
politics" during Howard De:ar's
Dean's run for president in ::1.002
1001 :and
and 2003,"
2.003" Critics of
politics
mainstream media ;ld\"OGIte
advocate and explore M
"open
source joum:alism":as
journalism" as a more dem_
m.:ainstre:l.m
Open rource
journalism.6t Br4Zirs
Brazil's minister of culrure-:a
culture-a
ocratic alternative to conventional journalism."
former dissident and popular musici:an-cites
musician-cites both Lessig :and
and COUntryman
coumryman
fonner
Unger as influences in his Culture
"Culture Points initi:ative.~
initiative: which gives gnntS
grantS
Robeno Unger:as
CO loea.!
loc21 arnsts
cultiv;ne emergent loc:al genres such as Brazilian
to
anists in poor areas
arc:as to
[Q cultivate
lllusic."
rap music."
abour
Someone like Esther Dyson might argue that these trends are simply about
the free distribution of information
another business model or that calling for rhe
h:lfdly a new idea. She'd have a;t point. Universities and libraries have olTen
is hardly
often in
as a m.mer
matter
various ways supported the free and open distribution of information 2.!1
organizarional principle. And open source
$Ource by itself is hardly a threat ro
to capit:lle:.tpiulof organiz:arional
as a whole. Any thorough look
look:lt
tile history of C:lpitalism
capitalism shows th;lt~pure
that"pure"
at the
ism as:a
markets have at best been temporary and fleeting events;
evenu; C:lpit:llism
capitalism h:as
has generm.rkelS
extra-marker political and institutional
ally thrived
rllrived only in the comat
context of various Cxtn-m:arker
2IIy
properry amenable to exchange ;and
;tnd
underpinnings. with rome
some things trc;tted
trellted as property
underpinnings,
1O
economies, it rurns
turns out,
Out, are mixed. If,
other things not.
not.'" All economics,
IF, say, operating systemS become
b:ome all open source, if they are
lIre mm'ed
moved from the C:ltegory
category of things thai
th;tt
tems
inco the c:ategory
category of noncommodified things
mings that
mat enable other
are exch:a.nged
arc
exch;anged into
exchanged, capitalism will not come crashing to
to the ground.
things to be exch;anged,
politic:l1 economic object lesson cannot be
But the role of open source as a political
markers or crystalline property rebreladismissed. Capitalism may not
nor require pure markets
but it does need some kind of legitimacy, some mechanism by which it
tions, hut
call be made to Jed
right. or at least worth acquiescing
:acquiescing to,
ro, among bro:ad
broad swathes
can
ful right,
individualism, understood as a structure of feeling
of the population. Romantic individualism.
OntO a mix of experiences
experiencts with computer us.e,
use, is, as we have Sttn.
seen. ;aa permapped onto:a
specinc chanccbar:tcculture, one that has iu own specific
sistent phenomenon in American culrute.
the early 1990S.
19905, \-Vin'as
Wirrd's version
\'ersion of rom.mtic
romanric individualism
ter and VOI.1enccs.
valences. If, in rhe
ter:and
neoliberal market
matket enthusiasms. bter
later in the decade that same
was harnessed to neoliber:al
feeling.:a.s
articulated by Eric Raymond.
RlIymond, Larry Lessig,
Lessig. and Slashdot,
Structure of fttling.
as anicul:ated
strucrure
element in :a:t countervailing dfon.
effon. At this poinr,
point, the det:lils
detlIils of [hat
th:lt
became a key dement
beca.me
that dominated
assumptions mat
object lesson remain confused and blurry. But the assumprions
managcri:a.1 circles
decision making regarding intellecrual
intellectual property in legal and managerial
cirdes
co 1997 have changed; it is no longer automatically
auromarically taken for gr;llued
granted
[980 to
from 1980
beu or only incentive for technological innovathat property protections are the hest
better, and that a
thar Stronger
stronger and bro...der
broader property protections ate
are :a.lways
;always better.
tion, that
166

Source, th",
rhe Expressive Programmer,
Programmer. and
a,\d rhe Problem of Prop<'rty
Properry
Open Source.

digital economy could or should rest cennally

centtally on the commodification
commodinc2tion of infordigit:al
macion. Before 1997, critics of this common sense were not so much rebutted as
AlTer the rise of the open source movement backed
intellectual
ignored. Alter
b:acked by the intellectwl
ignored,
be, and that shift
shilT happened,
h;tppened, in
cyberscholars, they no longer could be.
work of the cyberscholars.
because of the Widespread
widespread circulation of the romantic celcbruion
celebration of softpart, becaus.e
form of person:al
personal expression.
ware creation as a fonn
illtdleC/wll property. Property itsdf,
itself, as Carol Rose
And this may go beyond intellectual
pUt
traditionally h:as
has functioned as Mthe
"the keystone right,~ in the American legal
pur it, mldition2lly
tradition, serving :as
as rhe
che model for the very idea of liberty." As a consequence,
consequence.
to trump all other rights.
rights, such as free speech rights;
righu;
property rights have tended ro
righrs of the owner of the shopping mall or the newspaper generally outweigh
the rights
or working
the rights of an individual speaker who is visiting the shopping mall Ot
111is p:mern
p;tttcrn has been embedded in legal decision making in
for the newspaper. 1l1is
Uniced Stat~
States for most of the twentieth century. Yet, in the !:aSt
last decade,
deC:lde. the
the United
hlIs occasioned a tethinking
rethinking of thar
th2c impulse by demonopen source movement has
strating in vivid ways how overly sma
strict prorection
protection of property rights c:an
can condict
conflict
Smiting
me rights of speech and self-expression. In time,.
time, the
che open source movement
with the
m;ty be the starting point for a significant loosening of rhe
the link between property
may
Amerie:ln psyche.
;tnd other fonns
forms of freedom in the American
and

167

Source, the Expressive

ExpreS$ive Programmer. J;nd
and the
Open Source.
th", Problem of Properry

Conclusion
Democracy
Capitalism, Passions, Democtacy

B AC KIN
1994, towardstheendofthestock-bubble-inspiringWirtd
tow;mls the end of the stock-bubble-inspiring \.Vired
BACK
IN 1994.
M;lrc Andreusen,
Andreessen, interviewer Gary Wolf pressed Andreessen
interview with Marc
eX.:Ict difference between what he was doing and the efforts of
to specify the exact
Microsoft, whom Andreessen saw
S.:lW as -the
"the rorcu
forces of darkness.~
darkness." Is not Nerscape.
Netscape,
Microsoft.
Wolf asked.
asked, also a for-profit software company
compallY seeking to dominate a market by
proprier:lry standard:
standard! (Ne=pe
(Netscape was giving away the
rhe program.
progr.l.m, still
establishing a proprienry
time, but not
nor the source <:ode.
code, and it was rapidly
r.l.pidly crearing
creating
called Mosaic at the rime,
conrent.) \hen
When Wolf
Wolf pressed Andreeuen
Andreessell
proprietary new standards for
ror web COntent.)
issues, after
afrer some waffiing.
waffling. Andreessen replied.:
replied: Ille
on these i.uues,
the overriding danger
to an open srandard
standard is Microsoft .
... (hur}
[bur] one way
W:lY or :mother
thillk that
th:lt
another ... II think
Mosaic
is
going
to
be
on
every
computer
in
the
world."
Wolf
waited
for
more.
Mouic
world.- 'Nolf
fot
repeated himself,
himself."One
W:ly or another."'
Andreessen repated
-One way
anothl'r.~
credit that he ends the anicle
article there, with an ambiguity.
ambiguity,
It is to Wolf's great credir
Andrecssen's repeated one
~one way or another:lnother" hanging in the air. This is a
leaving Andreessen's
telling mOment.
moment. To be sure, it is not a mopian
utopian one. The
-nlC: young Marc Andreessen,
fuJI ofbr:;lvado
of bravado and brash ambition.
;t,mbirion, can hardly be seen as a proponent of alternaaltern:lfull
production, But it is not a GlSe
c:lse of false
f.1lse consciousness.
consciousness, either. \har
\N'h:lt
tive modes of production.
signific:lnt about rhe
the passage
pass:lge is that (I'(n
eVt'l Andreessen, the man:It
is signific:lI1t
man at the center of
the srock
stock bubble.
bubble, speaking at the beginning of an hisroric
historic moment of astonishing
:monishing
triumph and ideologiClI
ideological h~emony
hegemony for free market global capitalism.
c:lpitalism, would feel
~one way or tlnolher,"
auofl,er;' would so easily take for granted that
compelled to say "one
that there
could be tl/loflJtr
(lIJother way. This is another bit of evidence of the fact that the fabric of
American cultur:;ll
cultural common sense, with its romantic threads.
threads, is open to alternato the market,
Jilarket, even at moments when America's dominant ideologues are
.:Ire
tives ro

not.
to the "or
general
or :morher
anothet" in the genetal
Like Wolf, critical thinkers need to listen ro
di.scourse,
to
suy
arnmed
to
the
tensions
in
various
narrarives
of
technological
discourse,
stay attuned
and rreat
treat them
them:lS
reality of the moment, not merely
merely.:ls
liberation, ;lnci
as part
pan of the lived realiry
as
rhe only choice is celebration or denunciation.
denunci.:ltion. Wolf's obvisomething for which the
not be reduced
reduced. to
ro some kind of ideology
ous love for computer romantics should
sbould nor
.:Ind yer his sense of irony is worth pointing to and serves as
.:IS a useor foolishness, and
st.:lrting place for putring
COntext.' Thar
That hu
h:ls been
ful starting
puering romanticism into a larger context.'

attenrion, though not

the approach of this book: to give romanticism respecrful attention,
uncritic:11 acceptance. The significant thing in the firsr
first instance
insrance is that romantiuncritical
effectivencss in U.S. culture
culnlre that matters.
nl:lttcrs.
cism has both a persistence and effectiveness
True, the hacker ethic does not add up to a coherent ser
set of principles
principle~ for organi::ing software production, and it was folly ro
to believe those who claimed in the
nizing
Yct there
thcre would be no
1990S that the internet had changed the laws of economics. Yet
internet,l [he
the par.uneters
paranleterS of intellectual
intellecrual property
President Ob.:lma
Obama without the internet,!
dramatically since the beginnings of the open
in law and politics have changed dramatiCllly
1997, and the idea and practice of
ofgrassroots
democr;lcy have
source movement in 1997.
grassroors democracy
g:tined a new cogency in U.S. and global politics in association with the
thc internet.
gained
The necessity of and problems wirh
with supporting private media wirh
with advertising
have been more widely called inro
into question than
than:lt
1960s, And
at any time since the 1960s.
has been distanced
from property rights
righu in new and sigthe very idea of freedom h:lS
disranced ftom
nificant
possibilities in the United Sura
Srates that ha\"C
have not existed
nific:mr ways, opening up po.uibilities
since the Progressive Era. No.
No, this is nor
not rhe
the revolution.
revolution, and.
and, res,
yes, in
ill the midwas
1990S it ....
<15 all harnessed to breathe new life into neoliberalism. Yet the internet
has been at or
or near
neat the center
cemer of some of the most
mosr significant set of
ofground
h:u
ground shifts
in American political practice since the Reagan revolution in 1980 and the dissident mm'ements
movements of the 1960s (which weren't
either, bur
but which did
denr
weren'r the revolution either.
change the country in a variety ofJasring ways).
This concluding chaprer,
chapter, rhen.
then, explains how rhis
this could be so by summarizobscrvations about
abour what the past
paSt
ing the findings of the book and offers some observations
decades can reach
teach us about the relations bet......een
between capir:;llism.
capitalism, techno!og)"
rechnology; culture.
culture,
make~ the case th:u
that the internet is open and disruptive, not
and everyday life. It makes
inherent in the technology.
technology, but because historical circumbecause of anything inherem
natt:lted as open, because the Stories
stories thar
r11:1t have become
stances allowed it to be narrared
common ways of making sense of it hal'e
have represented it as open.
open, and in tum
turn those
11le interner
internet is
stories have shaped the way it has been embraced and developed. The
that
potentially open because people have made it so, and rhere is a lesson in thar
simple fact.
Cenrnry
Romanticism in the Twenty-First Century

WI,y Rom<1ntic
Romantic Individutllism
Individualism Persisrs
Persists
'by

,68

gestures discussed ill

in this hook
book keep resurfacing across
.:Icross
Why do the romantic gesrures
at the 1968 Engelharl
Engelbart demo, the
(he hobbyist readers of
Ted
decades~ The attendees ar
ofTI'd
Nelson in 1970S,
19705, the
rhe journalists celebrating Steve
Sieve Johs
Jobs as a rebel entrepreneur in
the 1980s.
1980s, the Wired
\Viud readers of the early 1990S,
19905 and
.:Ind the open source advocates
advoc.:ltes of
the late 1990S all shared an enthusiasm for romantic gestures and interpretations
interprctations
fundamcntal role in the evolution of computtr
in a way that played a fundamental
computer commuJ69
169

Conclusion

170

Conclusion

Computers as UtJpredictability Machj/l(~S

Yet there remains the question of why computers-of all things!-seemed

receptive to being articulated wid, romantic tropes ro such effect. Given their
initial construction as the embodiment of insrrumental reasoning. how could
o

Ji.o

soci:al formation~
The Weherian narrative of disenchantment with the modern (with which I
began the discussion of romanticism in chapter 2) provides a compelling genen.1
sense of the draw of romantic posrures and na1"r.l.tives; in Weber's terms, faced
with life in the iron cage of modernity, we despair at the lack of enchamment
and seek for ways to bting it back. Alan Liu, in The Laws of Cool, encapsubtes
what he calls the -culrure of information~with the line, -We work here, but we're
cool."< This nicely capmres that sense of distance people sometimes want to create between themselves-their sense of who they are in the world-and the version of themselves that gets expussc:d through most forms of work, in which
they often feel like a cog in a machine. That disrance can serve as the platform
from which one can take off in a romantic direction.
But the Statement explains the meaning of ,001 in renns of what it is nOt,
by way of exception to what is assumed to be the uncool identity associated.
with working in a particular pbce. Similarly. the \Veberian approach defines
enchantment largely negatively, in terms of what it is against (the lifeworlds of
modern instrumental n.tiol1a1ity) and explains it in ... compensatory manner, not
in terms of its positive content. And to the extent that Weber does provide a
sense of the positive content of enchantment, he tends to define it as operating
nostalgically, as a backwards look towards what it is that we seem to have lost.
Yet the technology centered kinds of romanticism discussed here are in the first
instance forward looking. \Vhile there are occasional gesmres towuds a restoration of cert:l.in p2St conditions lih the global village, wh.at internet romanticism
has established without a doubt is that romanticism can be constructed. within
the very technology-centered world that Weber imagined. to be ench.antment's
opposite.'
So, how is rhis pattern beSt explained~ First, it needs be said that in m:any
cases, it was not digital technology itself that transmitted romantic ideas.
Romantic tropes, in fact, were largely picked up in printed texts. Most of the
romantic habits of rhought surrounding computers, especially before the mid1990S, were made available ro individuals by way of traditional print (and even
Wired maga%ine, ar the moment of its greatcst impact around 1993-1994, was
stilllargdy encountered in print). Jusr as the sport of Alpine mountain climbing
would nor be what it is without all the book shelves full of writing about it, rhe
sense that the experience of using compUterS can he understood as unpredictably thrilling and creative would not exist without all the writing and re;lding of
printed magazine articles, essays, and books about romantic creativity in the field
of computing and more generally.

Second, computer coumercultural romanticislll had a specific history, a cultural COntext. John Perry Barlow, Ted Nelson, and Stewart Brand had read and
created reams of 1960s countercultural literature, as had many of their readers.
And, by the late 1970S, computer engineers in gener:al, even those without obvious countercultural proclivities, had encountered enough of thcse practices that
someone inside the Pentagon research establishment like Lynn Conway could
describe a giant technological project with gestures towards the infonnal-~we
don't have to form some insrirute~-and the gesmres would be legible.
Third, romanticism was reactive. Romanticism should not be o\'ergeneralb:ed to the spirit of the timcs in the Hegeli.an sense, an essence that penneated
aU aspects of sOOeer and culture. It made sense only if it had something to be
against, somerhing with which it could be contraSted.. In the elSe of the computee
counterculture, it gained traction as a response to other specific modes of thought
and their contradictions. \hen Licklider and Engdbart sought justifications for
using computers in an interactive, open-ended way, they were working their way
out of a COntext dominated. by instrumental reasoning harnessed to burgeoning
corponte and miIira.ry bureaucratic structures. The dominant logics of systems
science and the office automation movement wanted to eliminate the unptedict:wle, wheua.s Licklider and Engelbart wanted to explote it. \Vhen journalists 00ebn.ted. Jobs and \V<nniak as romantic rebel entrepreneurs, they knowingly did
so in the context of a society where enrrcnched corporate bureaucr.tcics. monoronously uniform national name-brand consumer products, and dry, pred.icuble,
profit calcul.ations were the norm; it was precisely the app2renr difference from
the nonn that made the [WO guys in a g:arage Stories worth telling-to the poinr
where those srories were systematically exaggerated. \hen \ired helped launch
both the stock bubble and the internet into everyday life, it arrested our attention
precisely because ir stood out against a backdrop of routine career paths, political behavior, and capitalist processes. It did nOt matter much whether or not the
Day-Glo graphics and innoVlltive layout of the mag:a:tine were readable; it mostly
mattered that it stood out fTom everything else. And when Eric Raymond convinced various corpon.te chieftains thu the best programmers would rather write
programs that they were passionate about than programs for which they were
well paid, this was made compelling when set against the seemingly intractable
MicrosofT monopoly and the relatively colorless software it produced.

nicacion technology and how we use it. What does the history of the internet'S
development tell us ahout the petsistence and effectivity of romanticism :as :a

171

Conclusion

instrumental reasoning's prithey come to seem to so mallY

mllllY a locus of one of instrumemal
mary anragonists~
'111is is where the compulsive quality of interacting with :I.a computer played
This
a role. Most computer users have
hal'e had the experience of getting absorbed in web
surfing or programming and then finding themselves loosing track of the passage
rime. and ending up in a place they had not intended. We have
of time.
ha\'e seen how this
me:l.nings (for example,
addicexperience can be assigned any number ofdifferent meanings
e:c.mple, addic
ofT
tion, exhilatation),
exhilaration), and can be (and probably most often is), simply sloughed off
as an oddity, as meaningless. Yet, for a significant minority, it does allow for all
with two key elementS
elements of romanticism: the assertion of unpredictarticulation wirh
experience.
ability, and the
rhe daim
claim to the distinctness of inner
innet expetience.
rhe great strengths of the
rhe romantic
One of the
romanric critique of various
vatious rationalisms
predictabiliry. The Enlightenment hypothesized rhat,jusr
rhat, jusr as
involves the limits of predictability.
the motions of the planers
were discovered
planets wert
discovertd to be mathematically predictable by
the $:lme
that made apples f.dl
:all from trees, so might other aspects
aspectS of life,
same rules thar
life. such
as hUIll:ln
humOl.n behavior. Romanticism's reply is that, at least in the rcalm
re<I1m of human
humOl.n
art, and
affilits,
affitirs, this is not so. The romantic thinkers were fascinared
fascinated by language, an,
OI.nd
hi~tory beC:U.lse
are historical
sysrems intemal to themselves,
history
because they art
bistorical and driven by systemS
immanel1t, necessarily conringent
comingent processes that will travel paths that
by immanent,
th:n cannot
be predicted ill
in advance.
Interacti\'e computers offer rhe
Interactive
the person at the keyboard a world of relatively
resulcs of using a:a computer are :l.S
uncertain outcomes. The results
as often as not less prem:achine or a lawn mower.
dicuble
dictable than turning on and using. say. a washing machine
11ILs
ir
This can be interpreted as a flaw or error (why won't the d:lmn
damn thing
tbing do what it
shouldf).
shouldn. Yet there are short seeps
steps from noting,the
noting. the unexpected "flaw;
"flaw;' to inputting
something in tesponse,
response, to a steady.
steady, ongoing interaction in which one goes beyond
seeking ro
to get the behavior initially
iniriall)' inrended
intended :lnd
and goes in unintended directions.
dircctiolts.
unpredictability
Used interactively.
inreractivel)'. computers can become,
become. in a specific way, ullpredictability
machines. It is a limited unpredictabilit)',
unpredictability, ro
to be sure, more akin ro
to reading a Story
abour
actually being a p:miciabout a dangerous mountain dimbing
climbing expedition
czpedition rhan to actuall),
panicilimittd uliknowl1biliry,
unklloll'ability, of web surfing or
pam. The safely endosed
enclosed experience, the limiwl
hacking can draw one in and then become articulated with rhe
the romantic value of
being involved with something beyond the bounds of full)'
fully predictable,
calculable
hcing
predictable. calcub.ble
initi:l.1 intention is assumed to be fixed. The experience
rationality
n.tionalit), in which the initial
of drifting while interacting with :l.a computer offers an experiential homology to
sclf-sh:l.ping process that
rhat
the romantic sense of exploralion,
exploration, an experience of a self-shaping
grid.'
unfolds according to its own logic, that cannot be mapped to some external grid,'
soci:llly, however, when it is
That homology
homolog)' becomes parcicularly
particularly active socially,
rationalize.
mapped on to resistance or skepticism towards efforts to predict. rationalize,

172
172

Conclusion
Condusion

:and
and control human behavior. As we have seen, many
man)' of the first encounters
contexts where bosses or colleagues
with interactive computers occurred in contextS
were proposing co
to use instrumental logics to manage their way out
OUt of hurlla"
human
warfare. to industrialize
dilemmas: to somehow control the horror of nudear
nuclear warf.ue.
calcul:ue one's wa)'
way out of inner city strife,
scrife, to win the
rhe Vietsectetarial work.
work, to calculate
secretarial
\.1.r b),
by compmerizing
turn schoolchildren into studious :lnd
nam War
computeri:cing it.
it, to tum
and obediencydopedia~, or to resolve the aching political tensions
ent users of electronic encyclopedias,
between democracy and the for-profit corporation with tidy committee Strucstructures manned by experts. In a life punctuated both by periods of loosing oneself
[Ures
encountets with misguided instrumental
insrrumental reasoning.
in a m:J.chine
machine and regular encounters
juStify and celebrate the former while
tradition offered a way to justify
the romantic tn.dition
btter and, most importantly,
giving voice to one's suspicions
sllspicions abour
about the laner
importandy, a way to
to
connect with others with similar views by articulating a shared experience using
learned conventions. Finding oneself as :l01. unique expressive individual meant
way. creating
finding others who also liked to think of themselves that wa)'.
crearing bonds
around perceived difference,
difference. whether they were dor-commers
dot-commers recommending
to the wind and talcing
taking the
start-ups or
throwing caution
caunon [0
rhe plunge into incernet
internet SUrt-ups
advocares calling for contributors to the Linux kernel. And.
And, as time
open source
source. advocates
went on, this altemati\'e
alternative discursive uni\ocrse
universe developed.
developed a crack
track record
tecord of relative
wenr
:accuracy; already by the early 1980s.
r98o~. Ted Nelson and Stuart Brand had
h:ld:la better
accuracy;
mallagers
track record of predicting the direction
direcrion of computing than the many
m.llly managers
[ike Xerox's McColough who imagined computers as tools of prediction and
like
order.
As microcomputers made the experience of interacting with computers widely
accessible. more and more people would h:ave
accessible,
have the opportunity to map the expeonto a romantically
rience of compulsive interacrion
interaction OntO
romanticall), inflected interpretation of
themselves and rhe world around them.
rhem. Someone working with computers, while
coming to a dawning realization :Ibout
about the impossibility of one or another example of ration:J.lisr
rationalist overreaching. might then reinterpret the act of computing as
instrumental-ro sec
they were doing as expression.
expression,
sonlething
something other than instrumental-to
see what the)'
artist, rebel, or
Ot both, and to find commuexploration, or art, to sec
see themselves as artist.
nities wim
with similar experiences that would reinforce that interpretation.
interprera.tion. In a culrWo-celltury habit of celebrating Emerson's dictum that
ture which has a nearly two-century
rrllsr the self
~elf as "that
srar ... without
we should understand :lnd
and trust
Hthat science-baffling star
virtue. and
alld of life,
calculable elements Iwhich
[which is)
is} at ollce
once the essence of genius, of virtue,
which we call Spontaneity;1
rhe experience of interacnng
Spontaneity,H1 the
interacting with a computer, in the
reaerion against instrumental
inStrumellt:l1 reasoning turned
rumed pathological,
parhological, could
Context
context of a reaction
constructions of
and did work repeatedly as an
OI.n erl:lbler
enabler or reinforcer of romantic cOnstructions
the self.

173J
17

Conclusion
Condusion

The Effects oj Internet Romanticism

How did this matter~ Romanticism did not cause the internet, certainly nOt by
itself. Many very unromantic, traditional human proclivities and economic and
political forces have profoundly shaped the innovation and global adoption of
internet technology. For example, the routine human desire for and interest in
efficient and rich forms of communicarion atcounts for a large pan of the long
arc of internet development. The capitalist imperative to develop new producrs_
one can attribute it to cteative destruction, the tendency towards overcapacity,
or the crisis of overproduction, depending on one's theoretical allegiances-cer_
tainly has played a key role in conrinuous technological exploration and develop_
tcchnological
ment. Direct and indirect state encouragement and cultivation of technological
innovation, alongside the state's role as a stabili2;er of market relations and regulator of market forces, has also played a crucial role.
Romanticism did help determine when, how, and in what context the internet was adopted and, in turn, the expectations we have for the internet and how
it has been integrated into human life. The broad shift from a vision of compllters as calculators to computers as communication devices was at the OUtsct
driven more by encyclopedic, rationalist visions than romantic ones. Licklider
and Engelbart were for the most part rationalists, though their search for ways
to find legitimate reasons to develop open-ended imeractivity pointed rhem in
counterculrnral variant
new directions. By the 1970S, however, romanticism in its counterculrural
did much to encrgi2;e, spread. and cement that change. In the 1980S, the romantic
respe(( for informality played a role in enabling the culture of"rough consensus
and running code" that shepherded the internet into existence as a widely available, robust network of netwotks, and in its different, entrepreneurial form it gave
legitimacy and energy to the spread and triumph of the "personal" computer that
would provide a necessary part of the technological infrascructure for the incernet's explosion the following decade. Romanticism was one factor among many,
but it seems plausible that tomanticism's influence could have provided the edge
that allowed the internet to surpass competing technological efforts couched in
European corporate liberal efforts, such as Minitel and OSI in the 1980s.
In the 1990S, romanticism in its Wired variant was at first more aboU( reception of the inrernet than about its construccion. But, as the 1990S progressed, the
rnm
Wired vision played an essential role in inflating the stock bubble, which in rum
caused the huge and rapid influx of capital into internet-related efforrs. As foolish
as much of the bubble was, it enabled the rapid build-oue and adoption of rhe
technology while quickly swamping alternative possible directions for compurer
communications. From the machines on our desks to telecommunications backbones, massive, sociery-wide investmenrs in infrastructure, interface technolo174

Conclusion

gies, and computer graphics hardware and software were powerfully fueled by
inrcrnet into our homes and workplaces, providstock-bubble energy, driving the internet
ing the internet a material base from which it would launch itself into everyday
life across the globe.
But in playing a role in creating the conditions for the internet explosion,
romanticism went on to help establish expectatiollS of the internet, especially in
the United States, that have in turn shaped its furrher development and integration into life. Our society has been flooded by stories of unpredictable actions by
individuals using computers to throw established authorities into disarray: Stories of surprising computer-related business start-ups, from Apple and Microsoft
around 1980 to Google today; of peculiar digital inventions taking the world by
storm; of internet usc by political rebels from Jesse Ventura to Howard Dean to
Barack Obama; of disruptive events that throw entire industries into disarray,
like college students downloading music or uploading videos. We have come to
associate the internet with narl":ltives of appealing unpredictability, so much so
that we now usc those narratives in making choices about regulating and further constructing the internet.' We regularly imagine the internet as a space of
free exchange beyond regulation, for example, despite all evidence to the contrary
(see, for example, China), and, as a consequence, we tolerate quantities of fraud
(for example, spam) and pornography that the polity would find unacceptable
in broadcasting and telephony. The habit of throwing money ar internet-related
businesses in rough proportion to their air of rebelliousness persists, even if
dampened by memories of the stock collapses and scandals of the early woos."
One of the most powerful forces maintaining the internet's open, anarchic
charaerer, in sum, is our memory of the all the romantic stories about the internet;
character,
expeer the internet to be liberating and unpredictable,
unpredierable,
those stories taught us to expect
and that expectation helps keep it that way.'Q The internet is open, not because
of the technology itself or some uniquely democratic potential hidd~n inside the
technology, but becanse we have narrated it as open and, as a consequence, have
embraced and constructed it as open,
The sudden rise of the open source movement works as proof that romantic
individualism is not just an epiphenomenon of or apology for the market but in
fact has its own relative autonomy. A romantic narrative of organic communities engaging in programming-as-arr and individual expression managed to play
intellecrnal property in the
a key role in shifting the broad discourse surrounding intellecrual
United States in a way that changed the received wisdoms operating in industry and-gradually-in law. The open source movement did what other critics
of neoliberal trends in internet policy making (for example, the Haubens' comrnunitarianism, the civic republicanism of critics like James Boyle, the blistering
munitarianism,
neo-Marxist critics," or Thomas Hughes's support for the Vannevar Bush school
175

Conclusion

of rhought
thought in the form
fotm of the military-industrial-university complex) could not:
nOt:
loosen a linchpin of the
che maill5tream
mainstream dominance of the neolibcral
neoliberal myths about
the internet as a triumph of a Lockean marketplace.
matketplace.
In the broad scheme of things, it is too soon to tell
teU whether the internet will
turn OUt
in place
rurn
our to
to be:l
be a truly epoch:ll
epochal technology or whether it will simply take its
communication technologies that have been elaborating the
in the long line of communieltion
possibilities of human interconnection across time and space fOt
for the last five hundted years.
ye:lrs. But what will probably
prob:lbly stick out
our when hisrorians
hiStorians look back at the
dred
inrernets
"'~I(/pllOriclll power
powet of the interimernet's role in the 1990S and 1000S
J.ooos will be the mttaplJOriral
net in that decade, the degree to which the perception of the internet as something essentially unpredictable
unpred.icr:illble and tied to
ro expressive freedom
Freedom spilled over into
other issues. In the United States at least,
le:lSt, one will not be able ro
to understand
the larger
b.rger trajectories of industrial
induStrial regulation, of antitrust
antitrusr enforcement, of first
amendment law, of intellecrual
inrellecrual property Law,
law, of property Law
law itself, without referinrernet embodied a kind
ence to the public's and policy makers' belief that the internet
eonfOUllded dominant
dominal}[ hahiu
habin of thought. If the
of new energy on the scene that confounded
internet had been received as simply
sinlply anothet
another embellishment on electronic communication,:IS
filx m:lchine
pl:lyer, events in the
munication, as something akin to the fu:
machine or DVD pl;lyer,
worlds of business and government would have played oUt
out diRerently,
differently. As
~ often as
nor, as we have seen, these perceptions were not parricubrly
particularly subtle or e\"W
even accunot,
I<Ire, but they would not have the power they did without the internet as material
rate,
object functioning
funcrioning as a historically important resource for
fot collectively thinking
The connection between romanticism
new thoughts about how to govern society.
society, TIle
nOt been
been:la relation of blueprint to
artifilCt, hut
but it has been a
and the internet has not
ro artifact,
Olle nonetheless.
materially
significant one
matetially signincant

TIl(: Limits ofImernet

of IIlUnlei Romantic
Romlllltic 1",lillidlllllisl/I
TI"
Individualism

Studying romanticism as a tr.tdition

tradition of necessity calls into question ronlanticism's
romanticism's
iuelf a tr:ldition,
tradition,
self image: the claim to be the overthrower of tradition becomes itself
discovered, L:lW
something learned as much as it is discovered.
Law professor Yoc.hai
Yochai Benkler, discussing
of internet -based pccr-production,
wssing the value ofinternet-based
peer-production, once cautioned
caurioned about what he
called M
"the
freedom."" 11,e
The point
pointis
is well taken, in
tile eXtraYaganceofsaying
extr.lv;lgance ofsaying this is about freedom.
large part for empirical
re:l5ons; in a COUntry
ofc:itiuns are
empiric;ll reasons;
country in which large numbers ofciti;:ens
faced with the aching Jack
lack of nutrition,
nurrition, health care, and other necessities, in which
noncitizens and even some citizens
rhe mosr
most basic protections
prorections of
citi;:ens are deprived of the
the due process of law, in which large concentrations of wealth
wealrh systematically
sysremaric:llly
undermine democratic
democr:ltic processes.
processes, how important can convenient computer comundennine
munication
municarion really be, especi:llly
especially in a world that already has ubiquitous telephones
and photocopiers, cheap video camer:lS,
cameras, filx
fax machines, and countless other ways ro
to
M

"

176

Conclusion

communicate! It is one thing to argue, say, that

communicate~
chat requiring telecommunication companies ro
allow access ro
competirors' hardware would be reasonable, or efficient,
to ;lllow
to competitors'
or perhaps even helpful to an open democratic society,
society. It is anothet
another to demand, as
some have, frecdom
freedom for the iPhone or to claim that internet regulation boils down
to a battle between
bctween the forces offreedom
rhe forces ofconstraint."
ofconstrainr.'l
of freedom and the
But part of what makes romanticism compelling is precisely its
irs extravagance.
Vlhen
VVhen Ted Nelson boldly proclaimed in 1914
1974 that Mthe
"the purpose of comput[he claim compelling then was not thar
that he
ers is human freedom,""
freedom;" what made the
offered
a
specific
argument
about
the
nature
democtac)' or that he
offered. spednc
of fteedom
freedom or democracy
described any ditect
compuring; those were still decades
direct experience with public computing;
away. Rather,
slapdash extremity of the claim, the way it
R;lther, it was precisely the slOlpdash
caution to the wind while completdy
completely in\'erring
inverting the received
threw all elution
recei\.w wisdom,
that
caught
one's
attention.
For
the
small
nunlber
rhat
;lttention.
number of individuals with
wirh experience
with compmers
computers at
ar the time.
time, one's susceptibility to
to the argument came less from
logic than from experience-from a pleasure in working with computers, perhaps
mixed with some doubts about the boss's misguided managerial f.mt1Sies
fanrasies about
computers as command-and-control
devices.
Nelson's
rhetoric
gave
that mix of
command-;lnd-conrrol
pleasure and doubt a framework
fr.lmework in which one could see one's identity as someone
light, The humor in Nelson's writing worked
who works with computers in a new lighr.
to
soften
its
gr:mdiosiry,
to
personalize
it-without introducing the compleXities
to
irs grandiosity,
complexities
of reasoned argument and
;lIIld empirical proof.
dear appeal and power of such mOmentS
extr:lVagance is
The clear
moments of deliber:ue
deliber:lte extravagance
conrexts, simply dismissing it as foolish often will only write
wtite
undeniable; in many contexts,
onc
ill
the
debate.
And
romantic
n:lrratives
call
sometimes
one out of patticipation
participation in
narratives can
work as a corrective to
bureaucratic grandiosity. Ie
It was
W:1S not the
rhe Pento varieties of buteaucratic
thar invented the internet, and the
rhe internet did not emerge automatically
:lutom:uicaJJy
tagon that
stock-bubbleas the result of OIla few bits of legislation or NSF progt:lms,
progr.lms. But the stock:-bubblelaunching story that Netscape's web browser
btowser was revolutionary and that young
Andreesscn was its genius crearor
turk programmer Mark Andreessen
creator worked to obscure
important aspects
as the merely incremental contribution
aspectS of the sitll:ltion,
situation, such .:IS
Netscape's browser or the nonprofit origins of so much of the inrernet
of Netscapc's
internet platform that was in place
at
the
rime.
Similarly,
the
idea
that
open
source
software is
pl;lce
time.
the creation
cteation of passionate anist-programmer
artist-programmer communities freed from the
dIe chains
c11ains
mnstraint obscures che
of corporate constraint
the fact that rhis
this kind of progt:lmming
programming activity still needs institutional support-academia, for example, or corporate consonia-not to mention social infl<lstroctures;
infrastruCtures; Linus Torvalds, who programmed
the first drafts of the Linux kernel while an undergraduate in Finland, has
h;15 said he
would not have taken the rime ro
to get Linux going had he not had the reassurance
of a Scandil~avian
Scandinavian social welf.1.re
welfare state providing basic needs while he worked for
no income."
177

Conclusion

So, U
fr:l.mework for soci:tl
as :ta framework
social ch:tnge,
change, romanticism is, by itself,
itself. unsusuin:tble.
unsustainable.
gre:at strength is its critique of rationalist
r:ationaliSl fantasies of predictIf rom:mticism's
romanticism's grear
predinability,
hislOrical comen,
abiliry, its blind spotS
spots concern social relations and hiswrical
context. With its
bro:ad social
soci:tl relations that
focus on heroic narratives, romanticism
rom:tnticism obscures the broad
m:ake those ~heroic
"heroic~ ans
acts possible.
possiblc, feminist
Feminist technology writer Paulina Borsook,
make
the enthusiasms that were driving the slOck
srock bubble, has described
in criticizing me
what she c:tlled
called the diaper fallacy:
b...bies, or thinking
babies ... is fun. Considering
ConSidering me
the rality
reality
making babiu,
minking about
moot making bWKs
of
how m.>.ny
many rimes
nmCll you will rnlly
really haw:
have to ch:mge
their dtipen
diapers (or buy them or
ofhow
chm~ chdr
wash
dispose of them or manufamrre
m:muf:lcrure them or ~
pay for mee
those diapers), is
w~ them or dil.pose
nOf.... It's
[t'S much more fun to think
(Divine~)
nor....
mink Grand AbstTaet
A~moCf Thoughu
Thoughts about (Divine)
Providence providing Prosperity-than to
bomercd to think about who wipes
ProvidtfK"e
ro br:
~ bomered
the
nOleS and picks up the garbage
and absorbs the
collateral rosa
C05rs and damage for
me noses
garba~ .md
me coIJateni
the
me ourlir."
out6t."
h:lnd,
Botsook's
Borsook's notion of the diaper fallacy works on two levels. On the one hand,
diaper changing reminds us of all the unglamorous
ungb.morous work needed to sustain
human life that is both uncelebrated and that goes largely un- or ill-rewarded,
wllile managers, investors, and other mostly male leaders take all the credit. On
while
the other, it points to a theoretic:tl
theoretical problem of political economy: the problem of
unwaged, reproductive labor that
thar has been so usefully discussed in the wake of
the
critique of Marx's (and others') labor theory of value. As feminist
rhe feminist ctitique
OUt for Some
some time
cenain sense, capitalism has
economists have pointed
poimed out
rime now, in a ceru.in
aR.oat on a large
I:.trge body of unwaged labor; for men to leave the home
always been afloat
factory. whether
whethtr as managers or laboren,
laborers, someone
someOne has to raise the
and go to the faCtory,
nlere mechanical usk.
task. Nec~ry
Necessary wOtk
work typically done
kids. And this is not a mere
f.1mily by women,
WOlllen, from diaper changing co
cteating
rhe family
within the
to homemaking to crating
and reproducing a culture
culrure and institutions-that
instirutions-rllat is, designing social teluionsrelationsthat nurture
rhe nat
next generation, has for the most
mosr part
syStemS
nurtUre the
pan happened outside systems
of market exchange.'?
exch;mge."
With this in mind, the fact
fact that
rhat crucial work might be done for purposes
purposeS
\Vith
orher
than
profits,
:md
with
attention
(0
structures
that
facilirare
cooper:l.tion.
other
and
to
facilitate cooperation, is
Free and open source software production is only surprising
hardly a revelation. free
in that it emerged in the male-dominated world of engineering against the backleg:al and economic regime that tried to
to harness a radical individualist
drop of a legal
Borh the
rhe celebrants
cclebranrs of the
free market system of ideas to the horse of high tech. Both
producrivity of voluntary
volulltary peer-to-peet
peer-to'peer labor" and their neo-Marxist critics" arc
are
productiviry
tOO astonished that
thar threads of unwaged work done OUt
Ollt of passion
perhaps a little
lirtle toO
inro the f.1bric
fabric of contemporary
or commirmenr
commitment are woven into
contemporaty global capiralism.
capitalism. It is
not
rhat sofrware
nOt that
software engineers discovered a radically new way to make things wirh
with
rhe internet;
inrernet; it is that programmers stumbled upon something that is routine
the
rourine to
178

Conclusion

wr:tpping that
much of the world bur
but ignored by the dominant ideology, and by wrapping
tedlllological triumph-in Byronic mirror
discovery in romantic clothing :tnd
and technological
spuk-the progranlmers
shades, so to speak-the
prognmmers were :lble
able to ~netrare
penetrate the worlds of law
thar others had not.
nOt.
and politics in a way that
But that
thar success comes with blind spots. Borsook was writing specifically about
markerplace principles,
the mid-1990S moment that fused romantic with radical marketplace
but the
rhe met:lphor
metaphor is generalizable: tomanticism
romanticism personalizes and in a parricular
particular
bur
ro colorful individuals while obscuring
way. On the one hand, it draws artention
attention to
11,e individuals at the center of
the role of institutions and broad policy making. The
moments of innoVOIrion
innovation who for re:asons
OUt from those
reasons of style or power stand our
them~Lidclider, Engelbarr,
Engelbart. Nelson.
Jobs, Andrcesun,
Barlow-ge[ the
around them-Licklider,
Nelson,Jobs,
Andreessen, Barlow-get
sporlight, while the important work of the many less colorful individuals who
spoclig~t,
al~o involved, like Van Dam, tend to become invisible.
were also
On the
rhe other hand, rom:tnticism's
romanticism's focus on spontaneous
spont;meous creation-fromirs own explanation.
nowhere, its presumption that
thar cteativity
creativity is its
explanation, and its celebration
ofrhe overthrow ofrradition.
obscures histoty
history and social contexr,
ofthe
of tradition, obscutes
context, such as the social
instirutions
developmentS, like school and
institutions that provided necessary sustenance for developments,
healrh
health care
cate systems.
systems, government funded research,
reseatch, and all the many infrasttuctural
inftasttuctural
rhat nurture
rechnological innovation. It is about
systems that
ntlrmre scientific
scienrilic research and technological
the social context
comex[ that allows people to devote energies to experimenting
ex~rimenting with
jusr about the genius of a young Steve Wozniak or Linus Tortechnologies, not JUSt
capiralism, not the
valds.ln
valds. In the end, it is about the tendency towards monopoly in capitalism,
occasionally arrogant behavior of Microsoft executives. It is about building a socigeneral, not <lIbout
about relying on
cry in which exploitive behavior is not rewarded in general.
ety
enrrepreneurs like the founders of Google, who, with
wirh great dramatic R.are,
heroic entrepreneurs
A.are,
said that one of rheir
"don'r be evil:
evil." Celebrating the unprerheit governing principles is ~don't
rhe now:l
novel is one thing,
rhe expense of an awareness of
dictable and me
dict:lbJe
thing. but doing so at the
anorher.
all the diaper changing that
th<llt keeps us all alive is another.
Capitalism, Culture, Selves

Yer for all its limits, romanticism keeps resurfacing as an oi]anized

organized force, someYet
\Vhat does this suggest about the nature ofc:apitaJist
times with impact. 'What
of capitalist societies
in generalf
generaI~
As of this writing. it can be difficult to recall what it was like in the mid-1990S,
rreated as pathetically our
OUt of touch if
when, for periods of time.
time, one would be tte;l.ted
one wondered aloud if the AOL/Time-Warner merger W;lS
was ;lbsurd
absurd or expressed
doubt that the internet had profoundly changed the rules of economics. These
rime ago, with the roughly
bits of dominant common sense evaporated some time
of
the
dot
com
stock
bubble
and
rhe World Trade Towers
simulraneous
collapse
the
simultaneous
179

Conclusion

in the terroriSt anacks

att3cks of 1001.1lU:
2001. The ensuing ideological shift allowed these beliefs
to seem srrange
strange and thus much more amenable to analysis:
analysis; that historical situasitua_
tion formed the context in which
whidl this book was largely conceived and drafted.
draned.
anothu set of changes in dominant modes or
thinking is ~foot.
Now, anOther
of minking
afoot. As this
rhe linal
nage.~
or
completion
in
the
full
of
1008,
some
of the
rhe ideobook was in the
final sugcs of
fall
2008,
logical f.1brics
f.a.brics rhat
that this book has spent much efforr
effon accounring
accounting for-neoliberal
nlarket policies,
policies. especially-were rorn
deregulatory and market
torn to shreds. An economic
ecocrisis in the U.S. housing mOl'tgage
mortgage market expanded into
imo the worst global
glolnl eco
nOmic collapse since the Great Depression. In response, under first
lirst a Republinomic
can and then a Democratic presidential administration, the U.S. government
govemmem has
or actions that
rhat would ha\'e
have been unthinkable in the preceding thiny
thirty
taken a series ofactions
years, such as effectively n3tionalizing
nationalizing a series of core institutions from
l"rom banks
to major mortgage lenders to
to insur:lllce
insurance and Clr
Gl.r companies. Almost overnight.
ror the moment,
reignillg
Keynesianism rose from
l"rom rhe
the dead and has buome,
become, for
momellf, rhe
the reigning
common sense among
amollg policy makers inside Washington.
Washington, DC (and in a surprising
boardrooms). But as
:as of
or 2009 it is by no means cle:n
number of corporate boardroorru;).
clear how
lirst stages
and by what me
the old ways of thought will be replaced. We are in dIe
the first
or
shift in the conliguration
ideologies. in the relations between
of anodler
another shin
configuration or
of ideologies,
berwun ideas
idea.s
the old is still swirling around us
and power,
power. but
bur the dust from the collapse of me
and obscures the outlines of the future.
the decades that ate
are the focus of this
future.. So rhe
book now mUst
musr be peered at through the refractions of yet another change of
dominant weltanschauung.
nle e\'enu
events discussed in this book need.
need not be seen as merely of historical
The
of past mistakes that
seck
howevet, or merely cautionary
tales
interest, however,
C2utionary rales ofpast
th.:u we should seek
to avoid in the future. Looking back at the dying embers of previous ideological
to
ideologiC31
rel:ltions berween
between culture, politics, and ecoframeworks offers lessons
le.ssons abollt
about rhe
the relations
prove useful
llseful no matter what form the future takes.
nomics that could pro\'e
assoTo stoUt
start with, the fact that romanticism
romanricism persisted and at times thrived in .usofor the claim that culture is not
nOt simply
simpl)'
cOlnputers stands
ciation with compUters
srands as evidence fOr
re.Aection ofor
ftom economic forces but has its
irs own relatively autono-.
a reflection
of or separate nom
irself.
Culture matters.
norjust
mous role to play in macrostrucrun.J
macrostructural events. Culrure
matters, and not
just to itself.
Romantic cultural habits were
were.aa necessary condition for the largest stode.
stock bubble
hUffi.a1l history, shaped the design and organization of whar
what is becoming the
in human
technological fabric
fubric for
fOr e1ecrronic
electronic communication worldwide, and h:u
has played .aa
freedom in our age.
role in the enactmenr
enaCtment of the legal and felt meanings of
offreedom
The stories of interner
romantiCiSm. moreover.
internet romanticism,
moreover, suggeSt
suggest a particular way in
h:ld its
irs imp.act
which culture maners;
rom:lIlriciSlll had
matters; romanticism
impact by offering forms of sellhood.
selfhood,
w.ays
underStanding one's own rclariOll
reluion to others, to work.
ways of understanding
work, and the world, That
char
can be .articulated
articulated both with various economic behaviors (for ex.ample.
example, programptogramming a user-friendly interface or st.arting
starting a business) and with macroeconomic
180
J80

Conclusion

philosophies (for example, neoliberal policies or open source policies). By offering

.aa collectively articulate,
sense of oneself while legitimizing
articulare, differem
different SenSe
legitimi:l:ing doubts about
the wisdom of authorities, rom;llltic
romantic practices take inchoate
incllOate lived experiencesinteractive computing or annoyances
for example.
cx:l.mple, the compulsive draw of intel":l.ctive
anno)'3nces with
the limits of rationalist plans like office automation-and
:l.utom:l.tion-and connects them to a
truth,
compelling and meaningful system
sysrem of understanding; pursue one's inner Truth,
and one might
mighr lind
find the satisfactions
satisfacrions of self-expression or triumph over the powers that
thar be, over mose
those folks who don't
don'r get it. This pattern, we have seen, helped
create conditions that shifted the direction
ditection of major political discourses and
emire economic secTOrs....
sectors.'''
entire
The idea of the market, in a certain sense,
sense. then,
then. fOr
for all its inadequacies
inadeqllOlcies as an
conditions. captures a cerrain
descriprion of economic conditions,
empirical description
cert:.Lin kind of utopian
hope-the ~Lockean
Lockean~ dream that
thar a crystalline system of property rights will projust rewards and that ir's
vide us our jUlit
it's possible to
ro do this in a way that works for all
descrving folks
existing
deserving
folles in all times in places in a way that transcends history and erisring
inequalities. \Vhile Ayn Rand formally celebtllred
celebrated the abstract, selfish.
selfish, calculattradition. it has been 2rgued
that she was aCtuactuing individual of the utilitarian tradition,
argued th:l.t
romantic~; the nctional
fictional and rcal
ally the ~last
Iast romantic;
real characters she celebrated were often
artists and archiu:cts.
architts, expansive
erpansive and exploratory
erploratory in culture and ideas,
ideas. nor
not JUSt in
\Vhile Rand's easy conflarion
conAation of expressive romantic indithe pursuit of profits." Vlhile
vidualism with utilitarianism may not
experts in neoda.ssical
neoclassical economic
nOt matter
m:l.tter to expertS
theory, it may help explain why their theories are attractive to the culture at large.
to somerhing
The idea of markets
markers is made more atttactive
attractive when it is harnessed TO
something
scllhood.
other than the
rhe profit-maximizing idea
idca of selfhood.
Yet the linkage of markets to
contingent. It is an
all articulaTO romantic selfhood is contingem.
Stuarr Hall's sense, not a logical necessity." We have .seen
seen that the articution. in Stuart
tion,
Aexible; sometimes romantic
lation of romanticism with capitalism as a whole is flexible;
discourse works in concert with capitalisr
1980S, and
capitalise expansion.
expansion, as it did in the 1980s,
capitalism, :IS
as the open source
sometimes romanticism pulls against
aspecrs of c3.pitalism,
againse aspects
Framing this process in temlS
terms ofa
movement did in the
rhe late 1990S. FtlIming
of a binary of resistOO much coherence and agency to
tance versus cooptation grants TOO
to the abstraction
of.aa
called capitalism; C:l.pitalism
capitalism does not
nor need :.mything.
anything. it is an accumulation
:l.ccumulation of
actions. not
nor an entity unto
Ir is not outside of Iluman
variety of human actions,
umo iTSelf.
itself. It
hUlll:l.n
spe.ak of capiulism's
agency. And ir
it overstates the universality of the problem to speak
capitalism's
cultural contradictions, a.s
as if c.apitalism
capitalism simply had twO, conAicting
conflicting needs: the
bur.
need for us to work hard and save and the need for us to
to be hedonistic and buy.
When. Max Weber discerned an elective affinity between colonial Protestant cul\\'hen
emergent eighteenth-century industrial capitalism,
ture and the requirements of emergenr
he W:l.S
was arguing that it was circumst.ances
peculi3r to
circumstanCes peculiar
co that rime and place thar
that
helped get capitalism off and running in North AmeriC2,
America, not that there was some
181
18J

Conclusion

at all times.
kind of universal bourgeois subject that capitalism needs in all places at:LI1
the question of what omer
other kinds of cultural reb.tions
to
Weber. in fact, lefr
rel.ations to
Weber,
left open me
What me
the Story
tomanticism sugcapit;llism devdoped
developed in later eras. Wh.at
capit.alism
story of internet rom.anticism
gestS is mat
that the relationship
td:uionship of rom.antic
romantic oonsuuctions
constructions to capitalist
capinlist ones is tangests
gential and historically
genti:LI
historic.a.l.ly shifting.
r;lther that there is a gap berween
between how many people
Perhaps the larger point is rathet
expetience
relarions and what
experience existing systems of production rooted in property relations
they associate with a meaningful life or with freedom. Market relations as many
Matket lllld
economists imagine them
and ptoperty
property relations
relacions prochem are not fully livable. Market
approximation ofhuman desites
desires for things like freedom,
freedom. justice,
vide at best a crude .approximation
con Auences ofevenu
ofevents thac
thar allow
and expression; it is only certain circumstances and oonfluences
sense. It is not
thar approximation to make sen.se.lt
notjust
juS!: a morality talc
t:LIe to
to 5OI.y
say th.at
that life needs
that it is not enough to
to be offeted merely monetary
to be meaningfuL
meaningful, th.at
moneary rewards.
rew.lrds.
life. :IS
as a complete principled syStem.
then. capitalism
Conceived as a whole way
WOIy of life,.
system. men,
capit:LIism
Conceived:lS
is unlivable
un!ivableover
calculated drive
me long term;
tenn; something more is needed than the
thec.a.l.cul.ated
over the
wh ich is why people will
seek
alternatives
or
seek to .arncuarticufor profit maximiution,
maximization. which
wiU
altematives .seek
late
generalization
lace the profit drive with other formations. It seems a safe historical genenli<:ation
to
co say rhat.
th:u, over time, large numbers ofpeople
of people will articulate and seek out forms of
life that offer something more or different, forms that
chat are not always nostalgic or
backward-looking.
forms
that
can
enthusiastically
embrace
rhe
backwardlooking,
enthusi3stically
the latest technologies.
ofthat articulation c.an
can be hugely consequenti:LI.
consequential.
111eexaet
The
eX3ct modes ofthu
capitalTIlis does not mean that
thM capitalism is in crisis. It metely
This
merely means that capit2l
ism and iu
irs inner workings are neither inevit2ble
inevitable nor perfunctory
pcrluncwry (in the sense of
unthinking or auromatic).
c2pitalism will continue to rely on and be shaped
automatic), that c:apinlism
by modes of social organization
organiutlon that are themselves nOt c:lpin.list.
capitalist, and that how
m:l.ITer. The quandaries
qU:l.ndaries
rhose
rdations with noncapitalist structures
struCtures are dnwn
drawn m3ner.
those relations
within :l.nd
capitali5t apparatuses th:l.t
that h3ve
h:l.ve accompanied the
and struggles
suuggles over capicalist
che develwichin
of
imemet
technology-struggles
over
the
very
ide:lS
of
ownership,
or
opmem
opment
internet
ideas
law.
law, or the organization of power-tell us that the variety of human desireswealth, of course, but also desires for respect, justice,
justice. expression,
expression. comdesires for wealch,
self-transformatiOn-have at best an awkward and tangential
munity. love.
munity,
love, or self-transformation-have
relationship to
to the
che forms of selfhood offered by the worlds of money, comracts,
COntnCfS,
property.
global oorpor.ttions.
corporations.
property, or the power pyramids of
ofglobal
(Re)Discovering the Social
(Re}Discovering
lleed richer understandIn that
chac awkwardness may lay seeds to
to social change. We need
terms of freedom to, not JUSt
just freedom from, working conings of autonomy in rerms
not
srructions
people, nor
structions of freedom that understand it as a relationship between people.
of
relationship.
How
to
come
up
with
a
workable,
positive
undersimply as a l:l.ck
wich
lack
182

Conclusion

standing of freedom is of course difficult and uncertain; define positive freedom

abstr:l.ccly or tOO
coo strictly,
strictly. and you define it away into just mote
more oonstnints
constraints or
tOO absrracdy
rhe internet might give
bureaucracy. But me
the experiences of the development of the
bureauct'2C)'.
us
radical individualism associated with
internet. it
US some clues.
dues. For all the radic.a.l.
wim the internet,
has also occasioned some public rethinking of the narure
of
democratic
nature
democntic social
relarions.
relations.
clut the technology itself
It should be noted that the argument
argumenr here is neither mar
is somehow democratic nor that the many momentS
horizontal cooperation
moments of hori<:ontal
to some kind of democratic revolution.
rhe like amounr
among programmers and the
amount TO
the naSCent
naKenr democratic efforts
dforts and hopes around the
It is common to speak of all che
Ic
internet and speak of the democratic
democntic porential
potential of the technology. While this
chis way
of framing the question usefully allows for human agency-we have a choice,
choice. ir
it is
that potential-it still assumes that
TO engage th.at
th.ac democracy
democr.lCY
implied, whether or not ro
not made that
inside the technology iuelf.
itSdf. But I have nOt
thac particular dodge.
is somehow i"side
11K
approached as a
The Net Effect, by making the case that cyber rhetoric is not best approached.as
bur as a rich set
hisroric:l.lly
set of naive or pernicious political econOmic
economic claims but
sec of
ofhiscoric:ally
embedded cultural'discourses with varying political articulations.
articulations, provides both
bener sense of a w.ly
a more precise picture of what's going on and a:l. lirtle
litele bit becter
way forW2rd.
thac, because
ward. My claim is nOt that the internet is inherently democratic but that,
of a ser
has opened
of:l
set of historical contingencies, the encounter with
wich the
che internet h3s
democracy that
rarely enter
and focused attention on questions of democl'2cy
up .and
chac otherwise nrely
public discourse.
111at
That encounter
encountet has succeeded in enlarging
enlai]ing the deb:l.te
debate where those of us in
critical academia have noc.
nor. When Lynn Conway
cultiv:l.red
Conw.ay cultivated an awareness of how
m:l.nufacture involving forms
ofhorito design methods of design in microchip manufacture
to
fonns of
hori:tontal
the creators
crearors of Unix promoted the idea of a programmntal collaboration, when me
shared tools and a consciously cultivated, interactming environment based on sh:l.red
ing communicy,
community, when early internet
interner developers gravitated towards the principle
of end-to-end design,
design. when these congealed into the colleCtive
collective habits of "rough
consensus and running code" for internet development and governance, there
:l.bout these practices. Bursts
Bursrs of technical innovainherendy political about
was nothing inherently
bctween
tion had often before been powered by moments of intense cooperation between
communities. to
memhers
various engineering oommunities,
to various degrees deliberately
members of V:l.rious
correct thar
that
against established hienrchies.
hierarchies. Fred Turner is correct"
working around or .against
energetic horizonnl
horizontal collabontion
collaboration .among
among engineers is neither new nor necessarily the utopian moment that open source romamics
sOrneti111eS .~eem
romantics sometimes
seem to imagine;
as Thomas Hughes observed in some det:l.il.
detail, the engineers that built the ICBMs
in the 1950S also operated in a highly cooperative, informal mode, energized in
that
enthusiasms rnther
rather than by any enthusiasm for grassroots
chat case by cold war enrhusi:l.sml
democracy." Previous such moments
momentS had typically been occasioned by wars (hot
democracy.J
183

Conclusion

or cold) or similar rypes of crisis. The political valence now associated with what
has come to be called nerwork-based peer-to-peer production is contingent; it
comes from the historical circumstances in which these particular practices
emerged.
Those historical circumstances, then, have been crucial to creating the widely
shared feeling rhat something abom the stmcrure of the internet is associated
more specifically with the political values of openness and democracy. The temp_
tation to pin those values on the technical structure of the interner is strong. As
of this writing. for example, we are faced with a political debate about "net neutrality" in which one side rests its political case heavily on a technological argu_
ment about the superior nature of the internet's end-to-end design, where the
intermediate pieces of the network are kept as simple and elemental as possible
and the control over what goes over the network is left to the devices connected
to it.... The technical principles upon which the internet was built, we are told,
mean that efforts to ration bandwidth-that is, ration flows from within the
nerwork according to ability to pay-is, not only antidemocratic, but technically
naive. Democracy; it is thus implied, is technologically superior, and the internet
is a superior communication .technology because of its democratic characteristics. This is an immensely powerful argument, as it associatcs democracy with the
"hard" values of superior technology instead of mere morality.
Yet, for all its power at this moment, the argument rests on a frail foundation." For the last two decades, the temptation to read political mot:llity tales
into the story of the internet's technical success have been almost overwhelming. but they have as often as not dissolved under the weight of experience. The
mid-1990S libertatian claims that the internet represented a rriumph of the free
market dearly ignored all the nonprofit and government-sponsored research rhat
helped create ir and the cenrtality of the often nonproprietary shared standards
and protocols that made ir work. The oft-repeated slogan "the internet interprets
censorship as damage and routes around it"" has been disproved by the efforrs of,
among others, the Chinese government. (In the broadest sense, it is probably the
case that a fully internet-connected society might make authoritarianism a little
more diffitult to maintain, but by no means impossible-something which could
also be said about the printing press, the telephone, and the photocopy machine.)
1he internet is not a technical fix for the principal social and political dilemmas
of democracy.
U.s. society is rife with well-organized, respecred, and established non- or
extracapitalist institutions, from municipal governments to rural electric cooperatives to parental diaper changing. 'NIJat was historically unique about the
work of the network pioneers of the 1970S and 1980s is not that they cooperated
or worked outside of proprietary formats but that that particular set of extraca184

Conclusion

pitalist procedures appeared in the heart of an emerging high-technology sector

in the absence of a military emergency, associated with various counterculrural
allures, and at a time when American public discourse was aggressively moving
towards a universalizing promarket discourse. The utopian character so many sec
in the history of internet development is not JUSt about the specifics of internet
development; it springs from the fact that the specifics stand in such contrast to
the dominant discourses of the times in which they emerged. III contrast with
sPOUt
the descendants of Vannevar Bush, the internet pioneers did not proudly spOUt
acronyms or appeal to a sense of national emergency, and at crucial moments
they had the wisdom to remain informal ("request for commentS;"we don'r need
to form some institute") and to decline federal funds when it was strategically
useful to do so. And in contrast with the ~age of the entrepreneUt" rhetoric of
the mainstream political culture of the 1980s, the internet pioneers knew from
experience that exclusively profit-maximizing behavior was not enough to create
a thriving network system, that a cettain amount of political compromise, a carefully cultivated culture of cooperation, and an enthusiasm for the technology for
its own sake were all necessary or at least helpful to getting the internet off the
ground. So when rhe internet took the world by storm in the early 1990S and the
likes of Republican leader Newt Gingrich tried to claim the internet as evidence
in support of his radical promarket philosophies, activists could look back on the
creation of the deep structure of the internet and find compelling object lessons
that undercut Gingrich's claims.
took the loose outlines of the story of internet
The open source movement rook
development and crystallized them into a dramatic narrative that drew sharp
lines between open Gnu/Linux and closed Microsoft. One could make the case
that rhe true success Story of open sour<:e is the internet itself, not Linux. The
internet, however, is more a mix of proprietary and open systems that emerged
from a decades-long accumulation of small practical dedsions. It involved a lot
of diaper changing. In contrast, Linux. coupled to the clever purity of the Gnu
General Public License, appeared on the scene at ptedscly the moment of Microsoft's rise to complete dominance of the operating system market, which was also
the historical high-water mark of the drive towards ever more proprietary conditions in the world of intellectual property. If the history of the internet invites a
thoughtful, ironic reading of the political economic derails, Linux invites a heroic,
David versus Goliath narrative.
That narrative, to be sure, has had a powerful effect. We have seen that, while
the romantic impulse can blind one to the diaper-changing aspects of life, its
iconoclasm can loosen the bonds of existing assumptions and institutional hierarchies and provide the conditions for new forms of social experimentation. The
case of the internet has provided compelling models of how to organize collective
185

Conclusion

work. \.Vhar the pioneers of computer networking rediscovered and institutional_

ized in the 1970S and 1980s, and what rhe open source movement seized on and
turned into a popular movement in the late 1990S is that hotizontal. informal
cooperation can be simply effective, and in some circumstances it can be more
effective than property relations and market competition. The sometimes non_
proprietary, sometimes nonhierarchical ways of the internet are no more and no
less anarchist or socialist than city governments or rural elecrric cooperatives;
the simple endurance of ciry governments and cooperatives-and the internet_
belie the claim that for-profit structures are always more efficient, and, by the
same token, none of them are inherently utopian or necessarily free from oppres_
sion. But the example of the internet's creation has provided a galvanizing set of
symbols and social thought-objects that have advanced the discussion of how to
do democracy in the broader culture. If one wants ro make the case for nonprofit
institutional structures, the internet is a valuable rhetorical rool, a starting point
for discussion, if not an ending point.
None of which is to say that the specifics of internet development arc not still
worth learning from. The development of computer networking over the decades
has repeatedly provided useful objecr lessons in how the activity of getting
groups to communicate effecrively horizontally brings social relations to the front
of consciousness; whether the task is something small, like calming the waters
on a discussion list, Ot something latge, like catefully steeting a fragile technological coalition thtough the shoals of beltway politics and competing corporate
interests, working on networks can encourage an awareness of and concern for
social relations of a type that goes beyond crude, top-down command hierarchies. The development of the internet provides distincr examples of the ways
in which exrracapitalist social relations can emetge neither from business nor
from big government but from mixed spaces in between the two. Those relations,
furthermore, because they operated at the heart of curring-edge high technology,
market failures or
need not be seen as somehow compensatOty, as teactions to marker
something that happens at the matgins of society; they were at the centet of one
of the more important technological innovations of the twentieth century. Exrracapitalist ways of doing things operate at the centet, notJUSt at the margins.
Yet if those lessons arc to endure, the discussion of them eventually needs
to be taken beyond the romantic individualist narratives that have been so useful in bringing them to broader public attention. Linux is not revolutionary; it
is an excellent object lesson that disproves the claim that significant innovatiOn
comes mlly from profit incentives. The technology of the internet is not inherently democratic, but interesting and rich experiments in how to do democracy
have happened so frequently on the internet that we have come to expect tllem
there and have been building that expectation into its legal regulation and under186

Conclusion

lying code base to the extent that it is now a tradition. Throughout the history
of the internet groups of people have brought various sets of social and political
concerns into rhe discussion of the technology in its formation. a discussion that
has since shaped how our sociery has embraced and continued to develop the
internet. Much of our embrace of the internet is driven by longstanding cultural
tradirions that we have brought to the internet rather than what the interner has
brought to us; the internet as a technology is inscribed with tradition at least as
much as it marks a break from it. It is not the technology, but how we embraced
it, that has made ir into the open, loosely democratic institution that it is. into
today's favorite model for forward-looking. small d democratic practice.
But this is a good thing. It tells us that people-not technology, not big institutions-while going about their lives using and creating technologies, have created some new conditions for democratic hope and experimentation. And, as a
result, the internet has occasioned a COnteXt in which an ongoing exploration of
the meaning of core principles like righrs, property, freedom, capitalism, and the
social have been made vivid and debated in ways that go well beyond the usual
elite modes of discussion. Internet policy making has brought to the fore questions about how we imagine creativity and production in organizing social relations. How does cteation happenf What social and legal structures best nurture
creativityf Finally, the inrernet offers important object lessons about the impottance and difficulties of imagining social relations and making them available for
discussion, lessons that we would do well to learn from.
The internet, in other words, is a socially evocative object. >7 Tt does not by
itselfguarantee democracy, bur the last several decades of internet evolution offer
a set of shared experiences that serve as political object lessons about democracy.
Those experiences have played a key role in casting into doubt the certainties of
some of the reigning ideas of the last fifty years and widened the range of possibility for democratic debate and action, bringing to the surface political issues
that have been dormant since the 1960S Ot earlier. As a result of this historical
CJ(perience, the internet's history has become insctibed in its pracrical characrer
and use. Bue
Bur this efflorescence of openness is not the result of underlying truths
about technology (or aboUT progtess or humanity) breaking through the crUStS of
tradition and inequality. It is the result of peculiarities of history and culture, of
historical contingencies rather than technological necessities. 111e larger moral of
this Story, perhaps, is that democtacy is a historical accident worth cultivating.

187

Conclusion

Notes

lNTII,00l1CT10N

I.John
Durham Ptt"'l.
P~t~rI. ~i"f
Spt~ki~iI illlo
i~IQ tlw
Ill< ....
Air:"
HmQr, Qj
tilt 10k.>
IJt~ of
QjCQIM",u~ic~liQn
(Uni""l"$iry
I. John Durium
ir. .... HulQ'J
'1/ rbt
CAm",...." ..titm (Uniwrr.iry
of Chin
go Press, 1001),:1JOOT), a.
Chicago
1. Set:
~e Mary Dougbs,
DougW, HDa,'nstiMlOl'IJ
How IH~tilu/iollJ Think
(SyrJCUU Unn"a'liry
Uniwrliry Prus,
PIUI, 1986).
:ITho".\: (Syrarosc
$<:e Walterlknpmin,
Ihescs on the
lhe: Pllllosophy
PhilOiophy of History;
Hi~tory" in fIIu",i",,/iollS.
ed. HannJ
). S
)Walter Benjamin.lhcKs
lD"",iMlwl'lJ, cd.
Hann.>
Arendt. tnns.
trans. HUT)'
Br.1e & World.
World, 1968).
196'), JSJ-64.
HarT)' Zohn (Harcourt,
(H.1rCOUrl, Bna
~5J-64
Arcn.:!I,
4. ,"'hile
th;~ book does
IOUlUl. il
it is
il more.t
mOre a ..
work
of himmal imer
imc:r
docs cOlUuh
colUulc SOme
some primary !IOU='
wI: ofh,scoric:U
...
While this
pretuion chan
than of original an:biv:l.l
nchival ruurch.
rc:surch.lhe
il\lerl(Crion of scirnct
,dence and
ptTt:ltion
The book WOrkl
works al
at the imc=rion
lecllnology studies,
studies. policy srudies.
INdies. and culNralllUdiu.It
1I1he
Ihnology
culrural mulics. It looks broadly ac
the lOCial
ronal conmucnon
conmuccion
of
inrernet thnology
t(Chnology while ,Iso
afield than is
il typical
rypical for sdence
technology
ofintemet
ilia going f,rrhu
farlher .field
science and thnology
srudies
culmral trends,
lr~nd,.likc
like romanticism,
romanticism. .nd
and it finds Ihe
the connlion
conneclion ooween
between culcu",
culmre
Jtudie$ into broad culrural
and technologycon.lTUClion
rechnology construcrion in cerl;lin
cerlain kinds
kind. of law :rnd
and policy formalion.
formation.
S.
S~~ Thoma. Slrelmr,
Slu~r~r. Sdli"g
,s.,ilinil Il,r
lIlt Air: A Critiq"r
Criti'l"r "j
oj Ill<
Polity "jC"",,,rr'ti..
ofCt""IIItrti~iJ B""..
Br<lll,I(~llinK
in 1M
til<
s. See
rM P"liq
<It..lri"g i"
Uniled SMIN
ofChic:llgo PrUI.
Potric~ Flichy's roeendy
recently lransloted
Unired
Srmco (Uniwniry
(Univrrsity o(Chicago
Pro$$, 1996). Parrice
tnnllned 111t
'l'J" Immltl
Im...,r'
I"'~gin~irr
~lIi"g 1M
til< Ai,. Flichy argues
ngue. that lhr
the VlIrious
various
I"'''gi"..
i.. in a way picks up on
On the approach of Selling
,h~ inrcrnct
in'~rne, need not
nOllO
rerms
themrics
rherori" surrounding
surrouoding rhe
to be merely debunud
debunked bUI
but abo
also Undtnlood
understood in terms
co"slruCl;on, broadly COllstrued.
\Vhereu Flichy's
Flichy'l work is quite
quit~
of .heir
rheir role in .he
rhe internel'l
intcrnet's eonuruaion,
cOn.5rrucd. Whereas
"'ggesri"".
Thr N~l
Nel F..fftft
E.ffw d"'elops
d~"elops a much more
moro specific
lpecific and grounded look ot
at pa.rticula,
panicular points
suggesrive, 1hr
conract berwttn
bt'Wtt" culruro
cuhun and policy fottnarion
formarion and docs so
uling somcwhl<
argu
of conrul
SQ using
somewhac more
moro focused argu'
ments (foruample,
(for example, aboullhe
about the role of romanticism). Sec Palria
Pamcc Flichy, Thr
Tbt Jllltmrll",..gin..irc,
Imrr"ell"'''Ki"airr.
rr..Ul$. Li~ Carcy.Libbm:hc
Carey.Libbrecht (MIT Press.
PreiS, 1007).
lrans.
ROnl~l1lic Clw.m':
Chasm', Libcnarianism.
Liberlarianism. Ncolibcralism..
Neoliberalism, and ,he
Com6. Stt
See Scrttror,"nul
$rreete<,"' That Deep Romanric
che Com
puler
pute. Culture,
Culture," in Co",mlllti.u,OII,
COllllllu"ical;e". Citru"sb,p-.and
Citiu'ul,ip. alld Soda/l'olifY:
SiaI f'Qlig: Rethinki..,
Rrtl,i"kinK rbt
Ilrr Limiu
Li",us of u...
lhe
Wtlf""" S.r..u.cd.
St~le, cd. Andrew <:.abb<uc
Cal,brei<: andJean
andJc:an Clauck
Claude Burgdman (Rowman &
&: Limelidcll999),
Li.rle~dd, (999).
"",elf"""

...

49-64.
...-

7 This would Ihus

thUJ in some sense
bt a conm"bucion
com<ihurion to
rype of media
his.ory ,hI<
Liu GiTC!.
Gi,el.
,.
srnsc ~
co the f}'pc
mcdi~ hisrory
elm LW
nl.:In dcscn'bcs
dcscribcJ 15
about"the: ways
that pcopk
people apcricnc~
upe<iencc meaning.
muning. how ,hey
perceive ,he
man
u aboul'the
"~ys llul
chey pctttivc
the world
and communicate
with each OIna,
OIh<:l". and how they dil1inguish
idenrify culrure"(Lisa
:and
communicace wich
distinguish the pat.
pul and idcnrify

""""')'I

Gitclman,
AI,.,,"", Nr""
New; Mtdia,
AlrJi". HUlery,
Dala "jc..Jlllrc
efCu/I"" IMIT
[MIT Press,
PreliS, 1ona].I).
ao08J, ,).
Gilelman, AI.....p AI...."']
Hist""], "",Itlw
and thC' Data
.
EWlnc D"a"'l
DoYams (Ne...
(New Yorir.
York Unm:niry
U"iveni,y Prus,
Prcss. wo<;).
aoos).
8. Sec
See for cnmpk.
example, Ted
Tt<I Friedman, EWITlf
Throughom chis
this book.
book, I will
...ill orouion.ally
occasionally uK
uSC Lodua"
Lorkr"" al
Ihonhand term ro ~fcr
refer co a scnK
sense
9 Throughour
as a shorthand
o(legit;mlIe propc:rq'
property righu
rights deri,..d
derived from
/Tom an individual's
individual'llaoor
aJ 1I1C
a jUI1 sociery,
ofkgilimare
bbor as
the foundalion
foundation of aju..
socicry.
refen 10 a popular theory
lheory of righn
rhar ignores much of wharJohn
lhat this refers
rights chac
w!lacJohn
while knowing ,hat
Locke:' actual
aCUlal wo,ks
wo<ks were concerned wirh.
with. For an ""ample
eumple of the way his work continucs
conlinues (Q
m be
locke's
panicular Ihcory
theory of property
properlY rights,
righu. sec
rllele essays
esUYI by rupecred
uscd (Q
m snnd
stand fo'
for a particular
llltd
see these
respected legal au.hor
auchor
;nes:
Merges. "Locke for the M"ses:
Products ofCollrivc
o(Coll(Cri"e
Mas$es: Properry
Property Righll
Rights and lhe
Ihc Producu
itics: Robert
Roberl P. Mrrgcs,'Lockc
aOO9. papen.slrll.com!soll/papetl.cfm1aln,racr_id=
IPH08,
Creat;";!}.; SSRN eLibrar]>
Croativity;
rLib...ry. 5Jan. 1009,
papers.$srn.com/soI31 papers.cfm!absrracr_id="313408,
and William W. Fisher III.
III, "Thcoriu
~fhe<lri .. of Intcllcctual
Intellectual Propeff)':
Property: in Nrll.l
Nrw EllaJl
EIUlYI in lbe
rbe UgilI
Lrg..I.."d
~nd
Polnical1hcory oj
af Pnrprrly.t<I.
(C~mbridge Univeniry
Press, 1001),
lOOt). 168-99.
Politic..l7hrory
p",pmy. cd. Stephen
Steph~n R. Munur
Munzer (Cambridg~
Univ~rsity Pross,

'"'8,

For the classic critical analysis of Locke's theory of properry, sec C, B. Macpherson, TI", Political
Theory ofPolSmive Individualism Hobbfi 10 L",ke (Oxford University Press, 1965)' For a discu,sion of the [imits to this way of reading Locke, Sec John Dunn. "\\'h"t Is Living and \Vb"r Is
Dud in rhe Politic..I Theory ofJohn Locker Interpming Political Re,ponsibility, Essays '98'-1989
(Princeton University Press, (990), 9-",
10. See Erkki Kilpinen, "Memes VerS\lS Signs: On the Usc of Meaning Concepts abour Nature
and Cultu...:; Semiotira ao08, 8, nO, '7' ('008): 2',-]7.
II. The &tuting poinr foe this discussion in the sociology of science is typically Rohi:rt K, Merron,
"Singletons and Mulriples in Scientific Discovery, A Chapter in the Sociology of Science; Pror~ding. ofthc Alt'erican Pbilosopl,ical Society (1961): 470-86.
I2. These arc ireta,ions of a broader question raised by political scienrist Langdon \Vinner ,wo
decades ago in a famous essay tided"Do Arrifacrs Have Politics?" The Whale and tbe RI<:lor: A
Scorch for Limits i" an Agr of High Tech"ology (University of Chi ago PCC'ss, 1988), 19-39. \\'hen
he wrote mis essay, it was popular in environmenral cirdes to daim tha' nudear energy was
inheCC'm[y centr.>li'ing. authoritarian even, whereas .obr energy would be inherently decemra[i,ing and democraric. Winner concludes that sweeping claims like this are roo .imp[e, but, after
discussing a variety of case studies in which it could be s"id that in various ways technologies do
seem to have politics, he concludes with whar he calls a "both/and posirion." He wants to look
doscly ar both specific rechnologies and the .ocial contexts in which they are implemented and,
in the process of reasing our me relations be,ween co,uens and technologies, '0 develop a better
understanding of wb, exactly is at stake in ,he dforr to build a mOCC' democra,ic life. Winner',
question remains, then, unanswered in full.
,). Among rhe works in eu[rural srudies of the in,erne" Fred Turner's Fro'" Coumerculrurc 10
C)'b"cul'uff i. One of ,he few 10 take seriously Roy R05Cn~wieg's call '0 explain the seemingly
odd confluence in compurer culture of 1960s counrercuhut:l.l.ryIeand idc:l1ism wirh ,he cold
war military ambirions ,ha' drove much of the early rcsurch that produced rhe intcrnCl. The
Net Effea offers furrhcr explanation of this confluence, drawing substantially On Turn.,'s work.
Sce Fred Turner, From Counte....ultureto C;rb'rculrure: SU....Mt Brand, the Whole EMth Network,
and the Ri.e of Digital Utopianism (University of Chicago Press, 2008), and Roy Rosenxwelg.
"Wi~ards, Bureauct:l.ts, Wardors, and Hackers: Writing rhe His'ory of the Internet." American
Hi<toricaJ Re~i.w '03, nO. S(Dec. 1998): 'HO-Ijl.
'4. Works ,h"t set the standard for ,he hisrorically oriented study of technologies as socially cons,ructcd include Wiehi: E. Bijker, Of Birycb, BaIu:Jit<>, and B,,11>s' Toward a 7J"'or;r ofSoriotrch"i.
cal Cba"g. (MIT Press, 1997); The Social Con'trurrion ofTrdmological Spill"" N.w DircCl;olll i"
the Sociology a"d History ofTech"ology, cd. Bijker, l'hom~s P. Hughe., and Trevor Pinch (MIT
Press, '989); and Pinch and Bijker, "'The Social Construcrion of Far.. and Arrefacts: Or How rhe
Sociology ofScience and the Sociology ofT"hnology Might Benefi, Each Other; Sociar Studie'

ofSciwcr '4, no. J (Aug. 1984): 399-44'

'5. For ex"mplc. the computcr industry and ,he U.S. Department of S,ate .quabbled throughout
,he 1990. over whether Or nOt '0 resrrier ,he export of microprocessors, which '" times CC'su[red
in situations where computer game console.-a machine inrendcd as a roy-weCC' threatened
wi,h restrierions because of their porentia[ military applications. See William G[an~, Clinron
Seeks ro Ease Computer-Export Rule" GOP Lawmakers Cite Securi,y Concerns; IJU[Y '999,
Wa,bi"gIOIl Time" AI,
16. Donna Harawa),,"A Cyborg Mlnifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the
1980s;Simia"., C;rb<lrg" a"d Wo""n: TI", R,i"",mio" of Natu ... (Routledge, 1990), 164. Richard
Ohmann says something simila" "T"hnology .. is [..elf a soci..I process, .arurared by ,he power

""

Norcs to the Introduction

relations around it, cominu"lly re.haped according to .ome pcoplc's intcntions" (Richard Ohmann,
"Literacy, Techno[og)',and Monopoly Capit"t"CcIJege E"gli'b 47 [Nov.198S)' 681), though, [should
~dd that Haraway's full quotarion contain. a qu..Iification' "Techno[ogies and sciemific discourses
can be parrially undcrsmod a, formali~arion" i.e.. as froun mome",s of the fluid social i",eraclions
consri'u'ing ,hem,"bur tha' ,hey should also hi: viewed as insrrume",s for enforcing munings:
17. Ano,her way '0 pu, ,hi. would be to say ,ha' ,he question is, \VI,,,t is society doing to i'self
when engaging in the SCt of prac';"s we call the inrernet'
18. Sherry TurkJc, Tbe Second Self, Compu/Crs and ti,e Human Spirir (Simon and Seh\lS'cc, '984),
19. IhrS! Came up wi,h rhis tide in "'The Net Effect: Thc Imerner and the New \\'hi,e Collar
Style," a paper dclivered to the Information Technology, and Society \Vorkshop at rhe School
of SOCil[ Science or the Institute for Advanced Study, 8-10 J"ne 1001, www.5Ss.i~s.cd .. /pub[icarion./p.1pers/paperI4.pdf.lt should also hi: acknowledged that Gi[ Rodman also independemly
came up wirh the tide"Net Effect in Gil B. Rodman, "'The Net Effecr, The Public's Fear and rhe
Public SpheCC'; in VirrulII Public<. Policy and Cc",,,,",,ity i" 0" Elretro"i. Age, cd. Beth E. Ko[ko
(Co[umbia University Press, 1003), 9-48.
10. Ian \Vatt. The Ri" of rhe Novd, SlIIdi" ill D4o" Riehl/ra,,,,,, a"d Fiddill}; (University of
California PCC'ss, 19S7), 60.
11. Christina DunbarHester. "Gcrks, MetaGeeb, and Gender Trouble, Acrivism,ldemity, and
Low-Power FM Radio." So<1al Studi.. of Sci",.. 38, I Apr. >008, '06.
1<>.John Frow, Ti",e and Commodiry Culture (Oxford University Press, '997), ,87.
13. Ar any giwn time and place, it's easier ro adopf some forms of personhood than olhers. TIre
PCC'SSUfCS one fecls to aer as, say, a marryr for Allah, a profit-maximi,ing businessperson, or a
self sacrificing parem vary according 10 rime. place. and co",ex" ,hey Jl.re not dererminare in a
mechanical W1Y, bu, are deeply shaped by forces ofhis,ory and social rcla,ions.
14. Sec E. Gabrielle Coleman and A. Golub. "Hackcc Practice, Mor~l CenCC's and the Culrural
Articulation of Liberalism: A.. rl,ropological Theory 8, nO. J ('008): ass.
15. Ellen Ullman, "Come in, CQ' The Body and ,he \ViCC': in Wired Wome": Gc,,,lu alld New
Rfariri.. i" Cybmpace, cd. Lynn Cherny and E[izabeth Reb~ Weise (Seal Press, '996), J-4.
,6. Sec Norris Dicbrd .nd Di.n" Schneidcr,"'The Digira[ Divide: INhere \Ve Are Tod~y, A S,a
tuS Report on the Digital Divide: Edl<lopia' W1,at Works i" Public Education, 1 July 1001, www.
eduropia.org/digital-divide.where-we-arc-todlY.
'7. Sec Jane Margolis and AII:lll Fisher, U"lockillg rl,. Clubhouse, Women in Computing (MIT
Press, 100l). Also see E1[en Spertus, "\Vhy Are 111CCC' so Few Fema[e Computer Scienti.tsr '99',
dspace.mit.edu/hand[e/l711.117040:J"net Cottrell,Tm a Stt:l.nger Here Myself: A Consideration of Women in Compuling." in Procrrdi"g' of lhe 1"'e"ti,lh AIlllual ACM SIGUCCS Confer.
.ltCe 0"
S.,~iw (ACM, '99')' 71-76, porta!.acm,org/citation.drnldoid='43164"43Z14: and
Joel Cooper and Kimberlee D. \Veaver, Ge"d.. and Ccml'utm (Lawrence ErIb"um Associarcs,
'003).
.18. I \lSe"we quite delibet:l.tely, not bec"usc 1 think there i, .. larger"we th~t was im"Olved in pcc"
vious decisions, bm because alarger"we" ,I,o"ld b, i",'ol\'ed in such decisions in the fumre; I write
with the political goal to open such struggles up to the whole of society, '0 take them beyond ,he
narrow circles to which they have hi:en conlined, whether those circles are created Out of dass
privilege or technocratic, urilitarian, or romamic forms of idemity,
a9 E. P. Thompson, l\ofaking of Ih, E"gri,b Working Cia" (Vimage, 1966), ".
JO. Ibid., 9,
3', Sec Ullman, Close to Ih. M<lChi"" li:cbn0l'bilia 'l>Id It, Diua"rwl< (City Ligh" Publishers,
'001) and 71" Bug (Anchor, 1004).

U,.,

'"

Nores ro [he Introducrion

CIlAPTIIl
CHAPT~R I

J. C. R. Lick!idtt,
Ucklid~r,~Compulen
"Compu!ers and
nd Govctnmem;
Go~mmenl; in Tbr
Tht Coml"dff
C"mpu/tr Ag<"
AI'" A T.....nly-Ye..
nl1YNfr Rnoiew,
Rtu;rw.

I.
I.J.

ed.
cd. Michael
Mich~el L. Drnou:ws
DerlOu='l1 andJoo:I
:ltK1~1 Moses (MIT Prt$$,
Pr""". 1979).
197\1), 116.
I. Quoted
QUOled in K:uit
K~lie I-bfner
~nd ~blUxw
M~tthew Lyon,
IVbtT(" Wiz,>nU
Wit<lrth Se"J
Slay uI'
Lal" 11H'
tlH'
1.
H~r and
Lron, \'lh.-rt
up Lare:
Tht Origins
Origiru of
oj 1M
ll1le....,1
Imrmrt (Free PnM,
Prell, 100l),
lool), 17.
"7.
). See Turkk,
Tutkle. "V.&o
"Video Ci3InCS
Games and Compurtt
Computer Holding Powtt;
Power; The11H' SmrJ
Srro'u/ Sdj,
&!f Campllrm
Co",,"'tm ..ROl,III"
..d rht

Hum,,.,
Spiril. ~---9a.
64-9a.
H
......." Spirit,
4.
~nd Lyon.
LyOll. \VIottr
Wh<rt Wiurds
Wit,,,,,ls Se","p
Slay lip u.lr,
Lat H-34
4- Hafner and
s.
'Ihe Ktw.I
>'Iual usefullVS$
ulefulness of computen
imerestingly remains
mam. of deMtt
debate among uno"
S. 1he
romputen inte=ringly
ranaiNi a In3tut"
<conomius, often
ollen atried
carried our
OUt undtt
under !he
die he:ading
thaI
rniJu,
heading of tlK
the productivilY
producmiry p.>r:>dox
pandwr based
bued on research
~ du.t
OY~r:>J1 conmbulion
compI>!en to
to producririry
productiviry is undur,
unde.a. and in somc
lindl. in aggn:gare.
a88reple. rlx
lhe 0Vft21l
finds,
corllriburion of computen
SOl<>"
M Mgtibk..
n~ible. Stt,
See, for example. 1hom>.s
Thomu K. Land..utt,
Landau.".. TheTh< Troubk
w;lh CompUltll'
cales
may be
casrs m.>y
T.....bk with
Camplllrn: US<'
lJuo-

fulnm, u...bilil]",
lhabilily. and
alld Prod...
Pr1l<1"wu;ly
Prcu, 1996).
'996).
jllW>S.,
n";!J (MIT Prrso.
documented how,
how. in rlx
the b[r
late nineteemh
the introduction
6. Carolyn
UroIyn Man/in
Man';n hu
has docu""'nted
nineteenm century.
cen[\lry. rlx
introducrion of
Ihe ekctric
elc<tric light
lighl and the lelephone
accompanied by various
varioul effo.la
10 explore how mese
lhese
[IK
reltphone were ucompanitd
efforts to
social relarionl.
Sec Carolyn Marvin,
lechnologiel
Ihould reble
relale to the
lhe body and soci:ll
red>noJogics could and
Ind should
rdarions. See
N,w: Thinki"g
Thinki>tg aboul
Elmri. Commu"icmio"
in II"
Lair Nilttl~"rh
Nin.I",,,h
Whrn Old
Ofd Y...:hnologics
7i:rlmofogi.s Wcr.
Wert N..."
a[,olll Elmri!
Commll"ir<>li"" i"
rm Late
Cr"n,,')' (Oxford Uni"rrsiry
Univeuity P"'U,
Press. 1990). Similarly, Brp.n
Bryan Pf.affen~rgcr
that"to s[\ldy
smdy
unw')'
pWfenberger has argued
ugued that"[o
technologiel art:
are made meaningful
me.aningful is
10 sludy
~n
Pff)(eUU by which new ",chnologies
the proces",s
is!o
study Wllat
what i.
is arguably an
indilpen.~ble component
economic grow,h:and
(Bry:>n Pfaffenbergcr.
indispensable
componem of
uf ....pid
rapid ""anomie
growrh and developmem" (Bty.ln
Pfaffenberger,
-Ole
Person~l Computer Revolution
R~vohlli(ln
the Social
Soci.a.l Meaning of lhe
the Personal Computer:
Computer, Or, \Vhy the Personal
Was No Revolution: AllIllroJXllogical
Aml,rol""ogi.a' Quartrrl,61
Wu
QuarterlJ 61 (J:an.1988):
(Jan. IQ88), 41.
See Rosenzweig..
ROJCn~w~ig. "Wiurds,
~WiurdJ. I}ure"ucrau,
Warrion."nd
H.ckers; 15]0-sa.
tUO-S:I7. S",
Bureauer.lts, Warriors,
and Hackus;
LiddidnanJ
8. M. Milchell
MilChell Waldrop,
Wildrop. Tilt
The Orr"m
Dn-a,n M<lfb;n~:J.
,\{<Uhin,,). C.
C R. Lirltli.ur
"nd Ihr R,,'O'ulj01l
Rt""lulio" That
Th..1 M,.J~
Mad.
Campuli"g
Compulj"Z 1'e,.."",11 (Penguin,
(~ngllin, "001).
1001), 1?5.
17S
9. Ibid
176.
Ibid.,.. 116
Edwo.""', Tht
Th< O_d
aOI.d World,
Wo,M: Compu!....
a"d rb.Ibr Poliri"
Poli/irs of
Dillou,S<' in CoIJ
Cold War
IVa,
10. Paul N. Edwards,
Comrultn "..d
ofDisr,,"~
A""rir.. (MIT Ptns,
p~u, 1997), a66.
166.
A_ric..
11.
7~.
n. Ibid
Ibid.... nI~. Sn
See f,.ittmn,
MertOll. "Singkr:ons
"Singl.ton. and Mulripks
Multiples in Scimrilic
ScientiJic Dis<:cM:ry:
Disoo~ry' A Chapter
Ch"ptu in the SocioIogyof
Sociology of
u.

Pc""",,,

tm

Science: 470---36
470-86.
SciaKe,*
I). For
Ihe many rnrttributon
~onrributorl to
to !he
lhe ckvdopr=nt
development of
of....dio
Ice George
GeorgeJeff'rey
,).
For- rlx
ndio communi",tion,
communic:"..... see
Jdfrry
an,1 Spm.:
Sf"lrll; Oripu
Oriti"s of
of Radio
(John Wtky
Ill: Son.
tholOUgll discusdiscus
Aitken.
Airhn, 5,,,,ony
S1"'''''J "nd
~ (John
Wiky '"
Sons. 1\l76).
'976). For
For- a~ thorough
of Wh~llhe
brod~rs did
did:and
not conmoole
conttibule to
to the dcw:lopmcnt
<kw:lopnlenl of the airplane.
airplane,
lion of..1ur
sion
<he Wright bnxhen
and did no(
s Tom D. Cmur.h,
Cf'OIlCh, Till'
Bilhops 8op'
Lif. ojWi/buranJ
Writ'" (\v.
(W. W.
Nonon, 1959)
193\1).
see
Tbr Bishop's
Boys: A Loft
ofW-./botr "nd OrIIilk
0r1IilIe Wrigbc
\II. Norron,

'4.

'4- fell'
For- rlx
the dm:rir:
eleclric light,
lighl. lOr
for ClWllplc.
eumpk, in 1878
.878 joseph Sw;m
S"""" receivd"
received a Brilish
British palent
p"lem lOr
for an
In
incandClC~n,
~n evxu~red
carbon filament
Jilamenllamp
before
inc:l~cn[ lighl
light bulb based on an
~tcd arbon
lamp "lmosl
almosc a year
)Ur befOrt

Sw~n: Brir""";,,,
Bril..n,,;ra o..fi".
www.le~rch.~b.com/eb/
Edison. See"Sir Joseph Wilson Swan,"
o../inr &lqdop.dia,
Enrydo~di",www.Karch.cb.comIcb/
anicle907Ds87.
arride907os 8 7.
IS. See Diana
Di~n~ Crall',
j"visibl. COU.g,,:
uJ Knoll'lcdg<'
Knc...ledg. In
i" Sciellt!fir
Sd",,!fir Cammullil'N
Com'llI",ili.s (Uni,...
(Unl,'er'
'5.
Crane.ln~ili&k
CaUtfCS' Diffusion
Dijfll.ian "j
.ity
Chicago Pres...
Prell, 1971);
and Tbror]
7htcry Gro"pJ
G,OU}!,;01
CCIIW"I><lrol?
siry of Chingo
19?1); Nicholas C. Mullins, 7htcries
TbroriCl "lid
i" Canrenlpor..,),
A",rri.all
(Harper &: Row.
~nd Daryl
D~ryl E. Chubin,
Chubin. Scciclllf1
A" lI"no'
A""p
Amuk"n S(I(iolOl1
Sodo/V (Harper'"
Row, 1\l7l);
1973); and
Sori,,1ogy ofSd.nw:
ojSicllm, An
lal'" Bibliography
ElibUotnlpby 0"
CoII.fts (Garland,
(G~rl~nd.1983).
t4lrd
on Inl'ilihl,
In,'i,;ble Collrg<'s
198)).
16. Thil
lomelimel called,
called. following ,he
~J[rong" program in [he
the sociology of science.
lcience.lhe
prin.
This i.
is sometimes
the "strong"
the prin
of symmetry, where
whe~ ideu
idcaJabou!
~bout scince
science or technology arc
~re approuhed
appro.ched at Iusl
IcaSlat
~llhe
{he outset
OUlSCl
ciple of.ymmetry,
II<'Ul
....Uy. rcg.>rdku
rhey ttiumplted
the end. For an aample.1
Kennelh
nemrally.
rega.rdJess of whether or nor
not Ihey
triumphed in [he
Cllimple, sec Kenncrh

'9'

192

Nm:es
Ch;l,pter Ir
Norci 10
to Chapfer

Lipaniro."Picrn...phone
Ihe Infonnalion
l11e Social
F~ilure: Th""logy
Tbll(l/"gy
Liparri!o, "Picrurephone and !he
Information Age: The
Sociil Muning
Meaning of Failure:
and
CIl/Illrt 44 (Jan.aoo]):
(Jan. 1(03); SO-81.
,,"d ClIltun
50-81.
'7.
Hafn.". and
Lair. 10.
r? See Hafner
md Lyon. Wbrrt WiUlrd,
Wjz"rdl Stay
Se"y lip u.tr.
ro.
18.
See ibid.
r8. Sec
ibid., S4-6).
S4-6].
P.asc~l Z:ochary,
Z~chuy, EndjrJI
Fromi.r: V"nn.......
Va"n,v;E(r Busb.
ElIg",ur rflhr A_rir"n
A....rica" Omu".
CemurJ
'9. See G. Pasc.a.I
Elldku Fro"tirr:
BoJo. EngJnT
(MIT Prrso.l999).
Prm, 1999).
Sta,,~ Office of$rientilic
ofScicnriJic Ruurch
Resurch and Dcvelopmcn[
DeveJopm~llr and
~nd Vanl>Cv.llr
V~llnev.. Bw.h,
Bush. Srirnrr,
,m
10.
United Suus
ao. Unircd
Scimu, rht
/;"dlm mil/itT
F,,,mi.r (u.s.
(U.s. Gr>vttnmenr
Government Printing
Pri"rin& Office. 1\145),
'94S). chap.
eh~p. ).1.
www.n.f.gov/about/historyl
EnJ/m
).1. www.n.u.govhboul/hisrory/

"f,"e

\ixulll'}4s.lmnlch
vbu~hI94Sh[m#chJ."
J.1al.
has been
becll an ongoing discw.sion
discullion of
the limi..
Iimill of"dle
of"I he linear
Iinur modd";
model"; it
ir USUIlV$
assumel"a perh~ps
I'. 111.,e
lbne hal;
of!he
perlups
o~r1y dean
clulliinuriry
from bJlsi<:
bask research
rcle~rch 10
rClC~rch [0
l(I devdopmellllo
technologicaJ
O\nfr
linearif)' &om
ro applic<l
applied ~rch
devdopmcnr 10 rechnological
diffUSion, which is ohm
ollen said to
to have originated in
ill Bush's
Bush'l Sf'rllu.
Ibr Wim
Endlw F.....
Fronti.r.
Karl
diffiuion,
Scicn, tM
tin-. Stt
Sec)(ad
Gr:>ndin, Sven
Widm.aJm. and Nina Wonnbs,Scicrt.I..JKUry
Wormbs.Srirnu.Il,JUJlrJ Nl'SJ<J:
NUIII' Hutory,
Hmo? Paltry.
Implieal;om
Grandin.
Sva1 \V'ldmalm,
l'obry, '",plk""o>lS
Publicnions, 1004).
(Science History PubliClIrions.,
n. For an OVCt'View,
overview. sec
see Ellis
EIli5 W.
Hawley."'Th~
Disco~ry and Srudyof
'Corpor:>le Liberilism..Liber.aJI~m.
11.
\v. Hawley,
"The Discovery
Srudy of aa 'Corporale

BUI;,,<II Hillary
Rtvirw 51
S~ (Aurumn 1978):
1978), l09-lO.
l09-IO. The
'nl<' theory of corporale liberalism il
generally
BUJi".u
Hi,tory Rnoirw
is genCtllly
hislory as.soelued
alsoci~red wim
with William
Willi~m Appleman Wil
to the "rcvUionist"
"revisioni5t" uhool
school of American history
\Vil
credited 10
1;1ms
Martin Sldar.
SId~r. See
Willi.m Appleman
Apl'Jem~1\ Wtlliaml.
Williams. CO"'"u'''
A",.rican
Iiams and his srudenrs.lih
srudents, like Marlin
Sec William
Contours of
ojAmerican
Hillo?
(W. W. NOrlon.
No.ton. 1\189),
(989), and
~nd Marrin).
M~rtinJ. Sklar, The
7'~ Corp"""lr
Cafl"'lllt' Rrr"nllrllCrion
R,rollltrurlio" <>j American
Am.rican
HiJlo')'(W.
C"pil"lis",.
TI~ M"rlr.l,
Ma,lIrt, the
II~ Lall'.
[,aw. ",,,I Polili"
Polili.s (Cambridge
Uni""rliry Press.
Pre", 1988).
c..l'iralim" 18911-1915:
,890-'9,6: The
(Cambridgr Univeniry
1).
Se~ Streerer.
AdVQC:Icy Grollp,
Groul" Anyway;"
Anyw~yr in Ad"O{''''J
,1,<11'11<""1 Groupl
Emor/"i,,
I]. Sre
Slreeler, "Whal Is an Ad<"OCaey
GroUl'1 ulld,m
rb. E"",I,,;,,
",,,1I !JU'U"?
td. Michael Suman
Sum~n and
~nd Gabriel
G.briel ROIsm:m
Ronman (Praeger
(Pr..eger Publishers,
""'"
/rUIU'lry. ed.
Publishers. 1000). 77-84.
14. One Cllceplion
UceP';OIl is
il the
,he academic
ua.demic Left,
Lefl. where .hose
parternl were
wert: a~ principle inlpir:>rion
tho'" pauCln.
inspilliion for the
slarc theory,
theory. whieh
which rewrole
rcWrol:e Ihe
bu.in... history
hiltory of
or Ihe
lradirion
tradition of critical
criric>lStalC
rhe ltand.rd
Ilandard husiness
the twentieth"
twentieth
mUlual imerdepcndence
buliness and
~nd biggovem.
big gonm
cemury Unitt<!
Uni,ed Statcslo
Slates to emphasite
emphasize the mUluil
in'erdependence of big business

"".I

"".I

menl.
ment. See,
Suo for uample.
example, Bringo"g
Bri..gmg Ihr Slarr
Se.. /t &fir
&ell /",
Ill. Perer
Pcler B. Evanl,
Evans, Dietrich RucschenlCfC'r,
Rueschemeycr. "nd
and
Thtda
(Cambridge University
Theda Skocpol (C:ombridge
Uni~ersiry Prell,
Press, 19S5).
'965).
1S. See Hafner
lVI>rrt Wizards
\Vitardl St"y
ul' lAtr.
L.alr. l7-}8.
)7-)8. 89.
15.
H~r and Lyon. \Vbrrt
SeaJ up
Se ibid
16. Sc
ibid.... S6.
86.
~7. Thomn
1110mas P. Hughes..
Hughes, Rae";111
!k"u;ng Pro_theUJ
Prom./IH'uJ (Pamheon.
(P~l\theon. 1998).
1~94). 10.
1?
18. Duccn<hn..
Descendants of Gr.lmsci
Gr~msci often
oft~n focus
wayl du.1
tim popubr
popular X<juicsccncc
acquiescence to
ro dominan.
dOnl;nant i<lcu
,deu
focw on ""3)'1
ilachieved
l.argdy by rnnsmitting
'r:>nsmitting or :uricuhring
~.ticul.ringideas
idu. from those wim
wilh power !O
to chose
Ihose without
wilhou[
is :ocbitwd brgdy
rn~r become popular
popul.ar"common
senj.t; however.
howe""r. a",
are somerimcs
sometimes only a subsel
power. The ideas du.t
p<nITI".1he
"common scnse";
subset of
~ruling ideu;
ide~s: od>et
orner modes of thought
rhoughr imporunt
imponanr to
raining dominanl
domin~m W1YS
"ruling"
ro main
maintaining
wa)'l of doing things
mings
~re kqx
Ir:ep< OUt
OUI of
the limelighl
made popubr-in
popular-in mis
Ihis CIiC
in ...
..... rious W2ys
wzys an
olin..
limelight inllead
insrex! of tn2dc
cue by meanl
means of
lhe apparari
~pptt:l[i of apern~
upcrcise.
the
Sc.c Hughes.
HUglICS, ~i"l
Rrsruing Promr,hrlls.
"9. Sec
19.
Prom."hr"s.
)0. N~tional
Rn'lllllficn, Govrn._111
G".......'....."I SupJ'Onfor
Sllpponfor C,mputi"g
Om,pllling
)0.
Narion.a.l RC$C:I.rch
R~ Council,
Council. Fundinz
F,,"di"l ..a Rr-,...wr;"n,
Rmarrh
(National Academies
ACldemiel Prell,
1999)' Online at www.na.p.cdulreadingroom/books/farl
www.nap.edu/rudingroom/books/farl
Rt....",h (N..ion..J
Press. 'm).
)1. In 196a,
1961, for Cllample,
ex~mp!e, Engdbar!
Engclb~rt argued
~rgued Ihal"Ux
,h., ",he srr:reorypcd
stereotyped image of Ihe
cOm pUler lU
as only
)'.
the computCT
mathem.alical instrument
in~trumcm is
illOO
limiting-enenriaUy, a~ computer
can manipulate
manipubte any symbol
1~ mathemarieil
roo limiring-cucnliilly,
rompUlercan
Iymbol
d~scrib.oble way.lr;s
JUSl mathemaric>l
'mlhen\'lic~1 or other formil
forlll~l melhods
mcrhodl that
tlm art:
are being concon,
in any describable
way. It is nOI JUSt
m~nipulating any
.ny of the cOnCepti
rhal the
rhe individual
usefully
tidered. Our aim is 10
.ide",d.
[0 give help in manipularing
concepts that
indi"idualu",fuUy
wo.k. of which lhose
or ma{helllilrical
"1~lhe"lJItical nature
bur a limited
limired portion
symbolites in his work.
.ymboli:zes
rhose of
narute comprile
romprise bUi
in mosr
re~!,life inslInces*
inmll\ccs~ (Douglas C. Engclbut,"Lener
Engclbut, "Lett~r to
10 V.nnevu
V~nnevn Bush
BUlh and Program of
mOlt real.life
Hum:l.n
From Mrm
~",I the
Ibr Mi"dl
MiNd's Ma,hi"e
M",hi".
Human Eff..,rivcn"",,;
Effecriveness: in Fram
Mrm.".x III
ro Hyprr,ut:
Hy~rrt"t' Vanncll<lr
V4nn'~M &ib
BlI,h 4nd
[Andemic
Pt-ct.s Professional,
Profession~I.1991J,
~39.
[Academic Press
1991j, 1)9.

'93

Notes 10 Ch"pter I

Jl. Andries V~n D~m, "Hyptrtext'87 Keynote Address (Tr~nscrip'): Co",,,,uni(~rion' of ,~.

ACM, IJuly Ig88, 890.

JJ. SeeJennifcr S. Lighr, Fro'" 1V~1~r. ro W'lf~rt', D'f"'"
D'f"'" Intt11.cw~!J
Intt11.cw~!J alld Urban Problem' in
Cold War Amtrim (Johns Hopkins University Press, laos),
See -The Office of the FUll"" An In-deprh An~lysis of How Word Processing \ViII Reshape
the Corporate Office," Bu,inm Week, 30 June '975. 56.
J5. "Good-bye ro Gal Friday' Can You Conceive of a Huge Offi"e with Only a Few Secre'ar;es'
IBM Can, and So Can Xerox and ~ Hosr of Od"r Comp~nies: Forb... IS Dec. 1975, 47
36. Quoted in "A Market Mostly for ,he Gi~nts, IBM and Xerox Will u~"e Little Room for
Od,er Competitors to Move In: Rusinm lVuk, 30 June '975, 71.
10 MiTRE; 'n>e R ~"d D
37, See Kent C Redmond and Thom~s M. Smith, From Whirlwind 10
Dcf."" Co",purrr (MIT Press, 2(00), and Hughes. Rmwi"g Pro",c,hw""
Srory of rh. SAGE Air Dcf.""
"p. chap. 1. Also ,ee Edwards, II" Clos,d World, chap. 3. \Vork on rhese systems played a role in
inspiring '960s work in imeraclive computer graphics, pa"icuJarly Ivan Smherland's pre"edem
s..ring '96, Sketchpad: See Iv,," Edward Sutherland, "Sketchpad, A ManMachine Graphical
Communication System: C"ml'uter Labomrory Terh"ir~1 RePOrIS; UCAMCL-TR-s74' J Sept.
200" www.cLcam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR574.html.
38. By rhe rime rhe first iteration of SAGE was complete in t963, ICBMs had supetseded lhe
airborne bombers that SAGE was designed to detect. See Edwards, The Clo>ed World, 37-38.
39. Ibid., 181.
40. See Waldrop, II" Drt'<",1 M~(hi"e.'78-79.
4'. See ibid., '58-83. Rheingold describe~ the ideas of the piece ~s "50 bold and immense thar
it would alter no' only human history but human evoilltion, if it p",,,,ed to be [TUe (Howard
Rheingold, TOd!> for Thdught: 11" Hi<lory and Future of Mi"d'&l'anding 1~chnology [The MIT
Press, 20(0), 141}.
4Z. Sec Edwards, 11,.. CfO$,d World,266-67.
43. Licklider et aI., "M~n.Computer Symbiosis; IRE Tran'aaio>u 0" Hilma" FactOr> in Elcctro"ics
]4,

(1960)' 4.
44. Ibid .. 3,
4i. The argument here is nOt thaI there was no playfulness elsewhere in the ""mputing world
or defense establishment. The makers of nuclear warhead. may well have taken pleasure in their
work. But that pleasure was nOt how they justified their work to others. VVhat was unique abou'
Li"klider i. his construction of aj,,,,ijiratio,, of something like a playful appr=ch.
46, Li"k\jder, Libraries of tl" 1'II111re (MIT Press, 1965)
47. Hafner and Lyon, Where Wiz,mil Slay lip L,lte, 36, 34.
48. See Stanley G. Smith and Bruce Arne Sherwood, "Educational Uses of the PLATO Comone of the reviewers of this book poin<ed
puter System," Sci", 192, n.s., lJ Apr. 1976, 344-51. As on.
Oll!, laptop tou,bpad. and the iPbone and its imitators have bun bringing touch ""reens ro digidecline of th, Engelbarttal communication more generally and rna}' mnk the beginning of lhe d.cline
inAuenced compllter interface and a cell"n to Platolike systems.
10 Hypertexr (Academic Press, '991), l370
49. James M. Nj'ce and Paul Kahn, Frem M""cx 10
50. Waldrop. The Drmm Machint',27.
V~'''lt<'ar Busb "nd rht' Mi".f,
il. Bush,"A, We May 'Think," in From M.""", ro Hypultxt; V~'''lt<'ar
Machi"e, ed. Nyce and Kahn (Academic Press, '99')' 89.
iZ. LidJider does not cite B"sh in "Man-Compurer Symbiosis." \Valdrop suggeSts thar Licklider
had beard ofBush's memex proposal but h~d not read ,he article a, ,he time. It may bave been
Engelbart who revived interest in Vannevar Bush's '945"memn" proposal, which is now regularl),

'94

Notes to Chaprer I

treated ~s part of the canOn of modern computing. Sec \Valdrop, The Drram MlUhine, 185.
reports th.t he was
w:lS seized by Bu,h', dream when he originally read "As We May Think"
Engelbart reporrs
one of the ways Engelin 1945 in Tlx Arlamic Monthly. It might also be significant, however. that on.
bart's dis<ussion of"As \Ve May Think" is known ro us i, 'hrough a granl proposal. Engelbart was
hurt his case to associate his thenodd project with Bush's
asking for money. Ir could not have hurr
engineering community So perhaps the notion th.t Bush's
enortnous aUlhority and power in the .ngineering
"memex" was a prophetic anticipation of the modem imer.\ctive desktop computer may owe as
much to Engelban a, to Bush himself. Bardlni makes a strong case th.t Engelban's indebtedness
to Bush is overdrawn ~nd cites other mOre important sources for Engelbatt. See 'Thierry Bardini,
Bootstrapping; Douglas E',ge/bart. COtl'OI,Hion, m,d rl" Origi"s of PmorwI CO"'/luring (Stanford
Uni"ersity Press, zooo). Recent scholarship has revealed the work of Paul Otlet from the 19JOS,
which in retrospect is mOre prescient than Bush's meme" proposaL See W. Boyd RaY'\'ard,
Soeirry for
"Visions ofXanadu, Paul Otlet (1868-'944) and Hypertext;Journ~1of the American Socirry
b!formatio" S,ie,," 4i, nO. 4 (1994)' 215-,0, and Alu Wright, 'lhe Web That Time I'orgot;'
Ti"JeJ. 17 June 2008, www.nytimes,wm!looS/o6h7/healthh7iht'7mund.13760031.
www.nytimes,wm!2oos/o6h7/healthh7iht'7mund.13760031.
New York Ti"w.
Ncw
html'pagewanted=oall.
Boor>trappins, 33-i7. For a discussion of rhe differences !xtween Vlhorfi2n rela
i3. See Bardini, Boor>tmpping,
.<ce George Steincr."\Vhorf. Chomsky,
universalist approaches to language.
language. sec
tivist and Chomslcyan universali.t
HisMry 4 (Am:umn
(Aurumn '972)' '5-34.
and the Student of Literature: New Lirrrary History
Throdor W. Adorno, -The Concept of Enlightenment: Di~lmic of
54. Ma" Horkheimer and Theodor
EMligbr",,,,e,,,, ..-ans.John Cumming (Herder and Herder, '972), 3.
E"'igbr",,,,e,,,,
55, Sec Van Dam,"Hypertcxr'87 Keynote Address (Tr~n$Cript):
56.11,. Engelbart demo was probably firsr refened to as the"motber of all demos in Steven

uvy,IMsa"dy Grt'al: The Life a"d Ti"ICS of Maci"lolh, the Computer

Compwter Tbm Chm'g.; Everylbi"g
Everylbi"S
uvy,I"la"dy
(Penguin, 20(0), 42.
Sre Turner. From Countereullllrt
Cownterewllllre to Cybercultllre. 110.
110.
57. See
See. Rheingold, Tools for Thougbt,
Thowgbt, 188-8g,
58. See
Geenz, "Deep PI.y' Note, on the Balinese Cockfight: II" Interpretation af
59. See Clifford Geerrz,
412-S4. Geertz's
Geenz's essay depicted a Balinese wckfight
""ckfight ~s a type of
Cull,...., (HarperCollins, (973), 411-S4.
public gambling ritual involving stakes that uceed any rational utilitarian justification. Engelbart's
risky, radicaUy new vision of compu'ing.
computing. had something of the communi'}'
community inrensiry
demo, in its ri.ky,
lhat Geertz round in the gambling rituals of cockfights in 2village in Bali. Although rhe e"perience
"self-motivating" compulsive
""mpulsive absorption, has more th~n once
of computer programming, with its ".elf-motivating"
been compared to the ."perience of gambling. me analogy to deep play would nor be that the demo
was like a cockfight but that it embodies a critique of rationalism ,hat is a, stake in Geertz's work;
Grertz observed in an in,tance of social behavior mat wl"t
what
by using Bentham'. notion ofdeep play. Geertz
Bentham saw as an uception to the rule could be the rule irsclf. By showing a ca.sc of play with
to be a deeply meaningful event instead of an odd pathology, Geet<:::
Grenz was
irrationally high stakes ro
ofBrmham's-and out-assumptions aboUl human rarionaliry ~nd sociery.
pointing ro the limits ofBemham's-and

CHAPTER 2

LeC/wrn a"d Poc"" (Bantam Classics,

I. Ralph Waldo Emerson, "SelfRehance; Sdtrd E,,~y'. LeC/urn
199o),160-6,.
2. Stewarr
Stewart Brand, "Spacew", Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death among the Computer Bums,"
2.
Rolli"g Srom. 77 Dec. '972, 50-58.
Emerson:SelfRdian; 160-61.
3 Emerson:SelfRelian;

195
'95

Notes to Chapter 2

rerm, "",,,mce
n",,,mer and ro"",miciJm
h~ve beell
been ~pplied
ro lhe
rhe imeme'
inrerner alld
and eyberculoure
cybcrcul,ure by
4. The lerm.
ron"IIlIUcum h~""
applied u,
wi,h nOl~b1e
norable frtquellcy,
frequency. Since I wed
used the
rhe lerm
'erm in ~a cOllfc~na:
conference p~pcT
papcr in '!Xl7,
'997, foru~mple,
for nample,
ochers wilh
ir ill
in the
Ihe ride
ofhif
hi.uol')' of Wim:!.
Wirrd. and Pa=>.ris'.
P~nurii. dw.ernrion
di_n~,ion used
used ilir 10 dacribe
describe Inc
Ihe
Wolf uscd il
lide of
his hisl:ory
Mosl of rhex
Ihese C2KI
casc. usc dK
rhe: COllctpr
roncept evoc.>tivt:1y
evontiwJy r:>.ther
r.nher .Iuri
than allalytic:ally,
analytially,
evolution
evoI.UOoII of compulers. MOSI
aception is CorM'1
Coyne's cknK
dense. and phiIooopbially
philoaophic~lly orWIIIN
oriented Ttcbnorumanticism.1
Ttd",orom<l"ti'ism.1 s1u...
,hau
howcvtr. The uuprion
howcvn.

'S. Sr.Jamrs
Seejamel W.
\V. Carey .ndJohnJ.
andJohnj. Quirk,"lb.
Quirk,!he Mychoo
Myrhol of lh.
rhe Electronic Revolurion:
R....olution: Americ..n
A,,,.rir,,,,
'5.
s.,ht>"'r }9,
J9, nos..
oos.. 1-1 ('970)'
(r970), 119-41, }95-4a4.and
J9S-414. ~nd Ctrcy."A
C~tey."A Cultural Approach 10
to CommunicaCOmnlllllic:a&ho"'r
tion; in Q,mmunic"tio"
Com",uni'''fio" "I
C,,!turr' wIJI
EssaY' on
011 MeJi.l
Mtd,a ~nJ
and Sol'ir1](Roudcdgr,
SotirtJ (Routledge. 1988).
1988), 'l-}6.
IJ-J6.
rion;
as Cult"re;
16.5Hiltrik, ~
Deale" of
4li,blnjnl'
XtnlJf PARC
PARC "nJ
"lid 1M
the O"..
I)" ...n
n of
1>J tM
1M Comp"ur
Co",pultr Age
Ate'
16.
Sec Michul A. Hil~k.
Ligblning: Xrrux
Business, aooo)
aooo), ~nd
Erica Schocnbrrsn",
Schoenberger, 1M Codt....
C"/rur,,l
Crisil ofrhr
oj the Firm (Wiley. 1997).
(Collins Business.
nd Ero
aI Cn<is

Coyne'. Ia1SC
KnSC tha.
thar mallyaitiqu..
many critiques of r:>.rlorWisf
rationali'l digir:d
digiral diKoufWI"oimply
di"our'e'"'imply moW:
move ro
to a n>mUltic
romanlic
Coyne's
or;enmion. rcwocIr.ing
reworking old gro'lIId;
ground." :as
u ...
well
a. his
hi. bdid"
belief ,h.u
rim philotophial
phllo'ophic,,1 criliqueo
critiques of !he
,he implicil
implici,
-d1 :as
orirllr:>.rion.

Ih-lOa.
IS.-1Cn.
r7. See Hafn.r
Lron, W~re
Wl"rr Wi;:dnU
lVi:wrdJ Sf",
Sluy up
up u.tr,
f.",rr, 111-13,
111-1), 1OS
~OS
'7.5
H.fittt and L)""",
'8. SecJoscpn
S.eJo&eph \I,.'rizcnb.>tum.
Weizcnbaum. Comp..ter
Computer 1'lnwr~"J
ElO'l'fr mnl H"m"n
1'1'''''<111 Rr"JII:
Reason, From]wlgrrllC'nt
Fromjudge,mlll I~
fa Clkulafion
c<,Ie"I,ui""
,S.
(Freeman,
(F.... m.Iln, 1976).
Ibid .. a}S-}9
a38-39.
19. Ibid"
aample. "Weizcnbaum is perhaps rhe SrcrcocypicallCII
II.rrorypkall9601 n.oL"ddilc"
ocaLuddil." (Rich.rd
(Richard S. \V:UWal
10.
0. For example,"Wri:cnb.um
Eliza 10
ro A.LI.C.E..
(A.Ll.C.E. AI Foundanon):
Foundalion): www.aliccbt>l.orglamdn/w.llue/
lace,""From
From Eli:.>.
lace,
A.L.I.C-E. (A.L.I.C.E.
www.alicebot.OTg!arrielrJ/w.llacr/

a"umption' ill
in digiul
digilal diia>ufSCI
discour~1 an
can hdp
help usuruknnM
u,"undersTand wh:u
whar is
i, al
a' Jim
'rake in tm
Ihe enrerprise
enrerpri'e lof
{of
usumprions
concerned, hooo,.cYtt,
howevtr. wi,h
with thc
the IIUrnW
muerial dftctiviry
etfec:tivi'y of
digilal world]."
Here I am more OOIlCC'tllCd.
building a digita.!
world]: Hcu
unou, digir:d
digital disc:oul'SCl,
discourses, meir
,heir specific
spec:ifK fullctiollings
funClioning. ill
in hislOT)~
hillory, Ih~1I
rhan I am with
wim Co~.
Coyne" ~pproach.
approach.
..mou.
",hkh tends
rend, to t~al
tre~1 man:lS
them as a SCt
set of compcting
philoaophical positiolls
po,itionl (Rich~rd
(Richard Coylle.
Coyne. Trch
which
oompctillg philosopltial
Tee".
no",,,,omitis," (MIT
[MIT Prus,
Press, 100'),
200r]. 7,
7. 15).
IS). See Gary
Wolf. W.mI:
A Ro",~"cr
Rom<lllrt (Random House.
House,
""",,,,,,minsm
Guy \Volf.
Wired:"
Georgios Panum,
Panum,"Madlin..
~nd Romances;
Ron,anca: The Technical.nd
TKhnical and N'mltive
Narrative Consrruc100)), and Georgio.t
"Machine. ~nd
Conmucl003).
Platform. 196o-r99s"
din., Stanford
STanford
rion of
ofNet""orked
Computing a5 Ia GeneralPurpollC
,ion
Networked Compuring.s
General-Purpose Plalform.
1960-199s" (PhD diu.,
University. 1008).
~OOS).
Univeo;iry.
n'e ckbar..
deb..e. about
abour whether
whother or not
nO! ceruin
ceTl~in intellectu:U
intelleetual ligures
hgure5 ue
are properly calkd
called romamicromanrics.S. The
was Goe,h.
G~lhe clalSic
cla"ic or romantid
roman tid Were Emerson and
~nd lhorc:l.u
1110u~u m.rely
metely inl.resled
inlere5led in Btitish
Briti,h and
~
Gennan romantics.
romantir or do they ronstiturc
ronnitute an AmmQII
An'erican version
vtrsion of romanlicis.m?-ar.
rom.amicism?-are b.>tsed
wsed on
Genuan
the ......
auumption
rh"r ronunricism
romanrirism is bc$t
,,"I undersrood
t.rnu of grc:a'
greal ~
WMks .nd
and gre.:l'
grat ~u.hon..
~uthors.
.I,,:
ml"'ioll .11.3.,
understood in terml
Friedrich Kirou.uggr.5rs,
Kimer .uggurs, no<
nor just
jus' m:1.l
rhar the
rhe Gcnmon
German roman.icism
romanlki,m should be rcperiodiud-he
repcriodizcd-he
Frirdridl
rud. Goethe'.
Goelhe's f,,".Il:lS
F"Ujl U romantic
roman,ir instod
inSlead of KUwiJr-bu.
KlIlss,k-but dUI.
Ihat, more broadly. One should underruds
.... " coI.lrction
rolltion ollau
of rau or a hisrorial
hillorkal period. but
bUI u
as aa .......
wayy of <><ianwng
organizing
Irand romanticism, flO<
nor II'
SW\d
di"outle through
Ihrough JlructUrrd
SlruclUled pncriccs
pTacrices of wriring.
writing. rading.
ruding. and
~nd ..wring.
relaling. rlul
Ihat is, :as
as d.iscourw
discourse
diia>urw
l:ricdrich A. Kinler.
Kil1[u. V;KQtl~
DilC<lurlt Ner..
NrrworJrs,
'8",,/"}oo. tranS.
t,ans. Michael Men.....
Metrur ~nd
and
ne!Worla. Sa
IICtW'OIb.
5 FricdOch
-orh, .IDohgoo.
Chri, Cwl.ns
Cull.n, (Sanford
(Stanford Uni''CIliiry
University P.......
Prus. 19i1l).
Weberllheory
disenchantmenf is oftm
oflen
Chm
991). Mu WtM.
theory of disenchantment
10 have
inRu.nrcd by various
....rious romantic
romamic ..rains
Itnin. of thOUghl.
thoughl. npec:ially
,erml o(
of the
Ihe
laid 10
wd
ha~ be.n influenced
especially in nus
lou auoci~rcd
wirh ....ional.nd
rarion~land in<cUccmaliud
int.lleClualized mod.rnily.
mod.rniry. Sa
Grcisman. ~Dit
~Di
scnsc of
scnse
oflolS
associaled with
See H. C. Grrisman,
the: \Vorld':
Romanticism, A.Slh.lics,
ACithetia. .nd
and Sociological Theory;
Brifishjo,,,,,,,I1>/
nch~mnl.nt of ,h.
enchantment
World': Rom.nticism,
n,tary; Brili,"]o"r,,~l
oj
Si1>/OV 17
Z7 (Occ.
(Dec. 1976);
1976): 495-5117.
49S-S07. Yet
Weber', hrst
illlerell was
wu ~Iw.ys
alw~ys rel.ntlessly
rekndes&Jy in ,h
Ihe empin
Sociology
el W.ber's
firSI imeresl
mpiri
al aislenc.
aillence of social
5OCi~1 pm.rns.
nOr responding
,uponding to
10 in.ell.ctual
inreliectu~llradili"'ll:
wh~f's signilicant
signifir1nt aoom
abour
c:ll
patlerns. nOI
t...diriollJ: wha,'s
tr.nd h.
he was
wu perhaps
p.rhap' gropingly
groJlingly lrying
rrying 10
ro describe ra.h.I,han
r~th.r rh.n
dlscnchantment;s
Ihe bro.ad
broad soci.1
social crend
di~nch.n.mem
is th.
rhe fact
fan rhal
rh~t in ch.c
Ihal Ut
an of description
des<:nption h.
h.somclimu
On f:lmiUar
f.miliar lropeS
rropel and logicllcam.d
logics lcarned
th.
sometimes drew on
rom~ntic poets
poeu ~nd imellccm:U1.
imellec:lUals.
from romantic
The Rom~",ic
Roma",i, Ethic
Elhic ~nJ
a"d 1M
rbt Spirit
S,,,ril 0/
MoJmr Cort'"rllC'riJ",
Co",umrrism (Blackwcll.
(BI~ckwdL 1987).
oj Modern
6. Colin Campbell, 1M
d~ UlCful
useful upccu
upccrs of
ofCampbcll
thai he:
dimnguiw, rom~nrlcism
pranKa of
One of che
Campbell is .h~,
he distinguishes
rom~nndsm from the p<acrices
scxu~l romana
rom~nce ~nd
and the Ii.eramre
lituature on fori:,;dda,
forbidden Iovc.loaring
IOVC', 10Cllling rom:lllricism
romanoosm in the
Ihe ~ncc
.me'llenc. of
sau:U
mOre gcncra.Iiud,
g.nerali2ed, broadctbroader ddinitionl
dehnitions of plcuurt
rhal may urnpol.r. from
f<om bul
bUlare
nOr roccnni
cOiermi
more
plusure rlu'lIU)"atr.lpobl.
u. noc
ROul with the
rhe looirionJ
Iradilions of romantic
romanlic Iovc.
love.
now
Ihe concqn
conc.pt of cultu...
culture :as
as ~a toOlkil
toolkit '"'"
lee Ann Swldlcr."Culm...
Swidl.r. Culture in Arnon:
Acrion: S)mbols
Symbols and SenrSltar7. For the
egin: Amrric""
A",rri,all SioIogiaI
Sociologi,al Rn>Jrw
R.vi.w SI (Apr. '986):
1986): a7J-86.
egies:
J]}-86.
8. 5
See Turner, From COulllm:..lru....
Coulll.reullUre 10
C)'btreullurr.
S.
10 CJbc'reodl"J1".
9. Ibid" 161.
See Edwards.
Edward.. Tht
The Closed World,
)-S.
10. S
1V0rlJ. 3-5.
II. Quot.d
Quoted in Pulling
Purling th.
lhe Offic.
Office in Plac.:
Place: B",i"ess
BlIlmm \Vult.
Wrrk. JOJun.
II.
lO Jun. 1975, S6.
la. See
Hughes, Rm"j"g
Rtsruitlg Pro",erbe..'.
Pro",rrbeul. 166-SS,
166-88, 189-95.
189-9S.
11.
Sec Hugh.s,
Sa Lighc.
lighl. Fro'"
10 W.lfarr.
IJ. Sec
I}.
From W"rJarr
W~rf~re 10
\V'if~re.
14. S
Su Herberc
H.rberr I. Schillcc.
Schill.r. Muss
M<w Comm
Co",mulli,ali""1
""d 1I",.,ir,,,,
f:.ml'irr (Beacon
(Bc.con Press,
Press. 197')'
r97r).
'4.
.."ic"lion' ""d
Americ.." Empire

196

Nor.s to Chapt.r
Chapfer"
Not.s
1.

,h.

eliu.hlml).
11. Wei~enbaum,
Wci;;cnbaum. Co"'pUlrr
Comp"rer Powcr
Power 'lIld
ulld I-I,m,,,,,
RNIM, 1.
Hu",~n Rr"IM.1.
n.lb;d..
1I6.
as.
Ibid.. 116.
lJ. Ibid., 1l6-17.
116-17.
1}.
Z4. Sr.
Se. Levy,
Levy; H",ltrrs'
Haclrrrs: H."""s
Heroes of
a/1M
Coml,urer Re""lllt;on
Rt""IUlion (P.nguin.1oo,),
(Penguin. 1001), '34
')4
1M Computer
14.
See Edwards. 7h.!
The CIosrJ
ClMrd W<Jrld.
World. tSI.
181.
as. Sec

"J

Su Gregory &'CdOll.
B.uC50n. Steps
SltpS t"
fO "n
"" &""'v
&olt>v of Mind: CIIIWtJ
EuoaJ< in
i" Anthropology.
Alllbn>p<>logy, PJyd';oury
Psyrhi"lry.
6. Sec
c..slretrJ EssoJl
a6.
E.",luti"". "nd
"nJ Episle""*'v
Eputemology (Chandler PTcss,
PreIS, 1972).
197Z).
EI'Ol..
17. lhtodorc
lhcorlore H. Nelson,
Neison."Complu
l"forn"'rion Processing: A File
Fil. S<ructu...,
$[ruauu fo,.
for the Complex,
a7.
"Compl.ex Infomurion
Iht lndctmninal.;
Indetermin~t.;in PNurJi"fS
l'rorrrdirrgJ "j
"JrM
1965 T.....
T...."liefh
Nali"",d Cortfrrnoee
COIIJerrllrr of
Ihe Changing and the
dtc
fM.96s
"tirth ,'loti."...j
rl,. ACM
ACM (ACM,
(ACM.'96S),
IJ7, porraLacm.orgIcit:ation.cfm!doid:
porlabcm.org/dl.tion.cfmldoid=800197.8060)6
rhr
1965), Il7.
800197.\106036

tw...

18.
Ibid .. '36-n.
1)6-37.
1S.Ibid~
~9. Sec ibid"
ibid .. 141.
19.5
)0. Ibid., IJ6.
JO.
1}6.
J lbid.
}1.lbid.
)1. Kathleen Woodward. "An and Technics:John
Tec:hniCl:JohnCage.
Eketronirs, and World Improv"",ent:
Improvem.nf: 1M
The
}1.
Cas., E1tctronirs,.nd
AI)'lbl
oj 1,10rmOliOll,
I"/or,,,alio,,: Ttd"'ofogy
Ttdlllology ""d
""J 1'1>Sri",fullrial
(lndi~na University
Universil')' Press,
Prell, 198J),
Mylhl of
Posli"dullI",,1 C"lru"
Cul,ure (Indian.
19S3), 176.
3J.
See th.di,nwion
rhedi"'lWion in Noah
No~h \Vardrip-Fmin
\Varor;p.Fruin .nd
and Nick
NirJr Monlfon,The
Montfort, The New
Nell' Media
MeJi" Rrmlrr(MIT
RMder(M IT Press.
Pre....
33. Sr.
zooJ),~' ,. TurnrrdiSCUJSC.Ilhe
TurncrdiKu55C1lh. New York an
orl sc.ne
Kene andifs
~nd;ts inAuenceon
i"f1".nreon St.wan
Sfew~rt Brand:
Ur;md: sec
see Turner.
Turner,
~003).111.
From Q,"nlrrr"u"re
Co,mltrlu1lurr ro
10 Cybrre"lt"It",45-SI.
Cybtrru1fu.... 4S-SI. AIsosa:
AI&o sce Tum.r,
!urn.r,"Ronu.ntic
Romantir Auronutis.m:
Aurom,uism: Art,
Art, Technology,
T.chnology.
A"""ric:ll:j<ltlm,,1 a/Vilual CU!lUrr7.no.1 (~008):
(zoo8): S-16.
and CoIlaboratiw:
Co/bbo"'fM: Labor in Cold \War
....a r Amma:p.malojV;s"alC..1Iure7.no.l
14.5W=frip-Fruin ~nd Monlfon.
Monlfort, 1M Ne...
New MeJia
Mrdi.. Rr...ur.
/k...ur. 14S-46.
l45 Wardrip-Fruin
a4S-~'
)S. 5
Su Nelson. Com!"'fer
Colllp"ltr LibIDrno",
LiblDrNIff MlIChines:
M...hil1t1: Nt...
Nt.. Frrrokms
FrcrJ1>IffJ tbro"gb
rhrough COmp,,'er
COIIII'Uttr ScTrtm-"
Strtc"J-"
}S.
M",,,roI)' Rtport(Ndson
/kporJ (Nelson [a'tlilabk
[av.ilable m.m
from HugO.
Hugo's Bool:
Uook Service).
Sen'iul. '974).
1974). Complller
Comp"rer Lob
raill'
hf",,,rrt]
Lib raisu
conven[ional rilltion.ll
cillloon.lt hu
has two
rwo "1Wvcs."
"h.lve.; printed hadeIOhade
backrobark in !he
the sa.rnr
....me OIumc
volume "ith
with CMh
uch
ronvt:nrional
half i",.....ed
;nverr.d .0
10 the od>cr
olher so Ih.1
rhal il
i, ellenti.ll
hat cwo
IWO front
fronl (tWCt'S,
ro"ers, one
one tided
tirled c..",plll....
Compulrr Lib and
~",l
ha.!f
ntiallyy hu
Ih. flip
fI;p side
tiid. .iOed
'itied DR"",
Dre"m M<>cbincs;
Machil"S: N
New FrrrJo....
Frrtd",>u IhroIIgb
rhrough Comp..ter
COIllI'Ul<r Scn-rm.
s.,rr"". As
AI CMh
e1ch ha.!f
h~lfh~s
dtc
hu
ICl"'rate pagoe
page numl>ers,
numbers, orariolls
citadons below
below wilInfer.o
will r.fer ro page numbcn
numbe.. in Q,m!"'ter
Comp"f.r Lib Of'
or DR~",
l)rr~m
separa,.
Ma,hi"es, u "ppropri~I" Th.copy
The copy used
uscd here i.
il descnbcd
dcacribcd uiii th.
me First
M","'nrs.lI.ppropri.cc.
Firsl Edition,"NINTH
Edirioll,"NINTH
pRINTING,Scpc.
198J; ~nd
and rhul.
rhu lhough
Ihe ropyrighl
copyrighr lis[ed
bom first
pag.' is 1974.
PRINTING,
Stpt-. 198};
though m.
lisred on bow
lint p~g"
1a deKTiprion
deKop[ion of
events o(
of '97S
1975 lik.
like Ihe
rhe MITS Alnir
~re described. and
'nd in
rho appe~rance
'ppe.:lr.nec of ,h.
Alt.ir.rc
nf ....ms
Nelaon" own biography On
on p.ge
page 3J ofComplllrr
ofComputrr L,b
deKribel activities through 1977- A he.vily
huvily
NcllQn's
Lib he describectivities
"''YP''SCI .didon
.dition "'II
published in 1987 by T.n,pus
Ten'puti !looks
Book.. of
orMicrosofr
Preu;:IS
r.vil.c:d and rcrypcset
was publish.d
Microsoft Pr.....;

revised
lome of
or Ihe more
mOf. im.crsting
inrer.sting historical
hilloric~1 malcrial
maler;al was removed
"'moved in this
revision. citations
cit~donl below
brlow are
arc
some
rhis r.vision.
10 chelint
,h. hrSt edirion
unk51 oth.rwi
olh.rwise nored.
noted.
edition unlas

Fr"",

.0

197

NO'fCStoCh;lpter:1
NOICS
to Ch~pter ,

-~--

}6. Quol~d in Wudrip.Fruin:md Monnon:, -n,.. N~", M~J;a Re..J(T. }o,.

}7. S Ndson. c..mpult' l...iblDm.m },f1ltfW,n (Miuosolt Pr, 19.87), g.1 haft personally m.( a(
k:uc ON' rompu<cr profession.:d ho told IlK d", urn. (hing.
). S Ndson. Drram Math"
p. "X (Ii", KCOnd p"gr of a kllrrrd, unnumbrftd"SprcW
Suppkmnu lO m.. Third Prin(ing..AuguSi '97S" du( ....rrs Dml", ,o.1"'hi....). "The pusagr pn"
dicls dur X.ro:I PARe's innOV:l.rions-thosc du( ...."Quld Ind to th. CTe:l.Oon of th. Macinlosh
las Ihan a drradr later-will kad Xnox 10 domin.:u. th. rompuler fidd. Bu( h. roncluda wilh
rhe following prrKi.nt p"rc:nthrlialstal.m.nt:lh. a!xn. prcdicrions arc: Iusrcl. of course, On
rh. assump,ion of X.l'O;( manag.m.n( knowing whal i('s doing. Auumprions of (hislypC in th.
,oml'ul~r fidd all tOO oflCn tum ou< lO b~ wilhout basis. BlI! w~ 'an hop~" (Ndso". CQmpUl.r

~-

- --

------

--

Lib. X).
}g. SjohnJ. And.uon, "Dav. T.lIs Ahl-Ih~ Hislory ofCr.alift Computing (David Ahl's
personal n~r:..ift); emil;,,,, c.."'put;"f (Nov. Igll4), 7"
,,0. Wardrip-Fruin:rnd Montfort. Jh,r N...., M.dia Rrad.r. )01.
"I. Lest ther. ~ any doubt llu, Ndson ....':1.5 familiM with m.. Cu..u.,. on Orra... Marhi...., p.
lo M wrilel,"of course I'm bWantly imiuring.. in a way, m.. wonderful Wbok Earth Cu",,": of
Sl~wa" Brand: H. a110 cira 1M D.>mrbooI<. a popular insnucrian nunu:al on grodaic <iorMs,
:as inspinrion. And on p. 69, 0>m1"'1t, I...,b visually quous <h~ \Vbolr ""n:b c..la/eis CO'.. r (and
most famous imagt) wilh a lUll pag compu,.r-g.n.r:lfrd imagt of arm from Ipa, ap<ionrd
Ih~ Hoi, ~t(h Coulog;
,,:to Nd~n, Compulrr U&.),
,,). Pr~sumably. N~1son waS r~ferring fO fh~ comically inaccura'c"A Marhl Mosdy for ,h.
Giants: IBM and X.ro:< \ViU Lea'" Li,<!, Room for Omer Compcd(or. lO Mo~ In;
"". Nelson, c..mpule, Lib, X.
"s. Ibid., n. ~n Hobbes Zakon's"Hobbrs In(=[ TImeline" an:ribura me lil'Sl UK of Ih.
ltrm
sury", '0 jun Armour Polly in l\I9a. S Robnt Hobbes Mon. "Hobbes' IllItmrt
Timclinr-lhc Defini';'.. ARPANET ~nd In.emtt Hisroty; ............~n.ot-gIroberr/incemtt/

.imdinc/.
46. N~lson, c.."'pJl'U /...oj" sl.
"7. Ibid.
41. Nelson, "KI<}"TIoce Addras pl'ClC'ntrd~, ,h. A<sociolion of Imtmrt Researchers Finh
Annual Confc(encc, Sussex Uni~rsiry, 21 ScI'" aoo".
4\). 'S~e Nelson, CQmpu((r Lib. 2.
So. Se~ ibid.
S" S.., ibid.. 6}.
S1. The Amish ,hemscl.'CS arc nol ~ moch opposrcl (0 (cchnology in gcnCf:l1 as ,hey ate opposed
10 IOrms thai CTe;{[e dependency on ... h.1, mey virw as the F.aIIen ronlrmporaq' world. Their
Mak with modem .echnologial forms. in any cur, is more l3dinl and differently fnmcd than
ma( of romantics..
S). Williom Wordswonh, Jh,r C..tlrrc.J Pms ofWilJi.r... WorJnooorrh (Wordsworth Edi.ions,
'lWB), S69; Wall Whirman. Thr c..... pklt Pot...s (Penguin, 10G'l), ,,81-I}.
Sot. See Robert Dalmon. "Rndrn Respond Co Rouurau, The Fabric:lrion of Romamk ~n.iriv
iry; -n,.. Grr~t c..1 Ma"a,,. and Olher EplSodts in Frrn,n C"lt"r,,1 HisMI')' (lg8,,), als-s6.

N(){~ (0 Clupter:1

198

(l

rn.lnm!.

,f

---

ss. Ibid" 118-ag.

S6. See"HomeLib Issue' BYTE-J..u~ Il (Sep(ember, 1916): www.dr.vili.iki.li/library/i~surl.s8.

S7 See Levy, Hlltkm, lSot-a,s. See also ~ X. Cringely; Arri.unl,,1 Empi...., H_Iht Bop pf
Mm Thrir Milliolfj. Baltk FMtign c.....pctifion. "nJ SliH c.,,'t Grr a Oat. (Collins
Business. 1')96); Paul Srn.\he Triumph of me Nerds: "The Rise of Accidenlal Empires" (PBS,
june 1')96), ............. pbs.ofgInrrds/; And Martyn Bu<l<e, Pinllrs pf5.lllon V.:l!g, VHS Tapc (Turner
Home Enl.ruinmcnt, woo).
Sl. See Lrvy. H"'lrm, no.
S\). "IBM Enlrtli'me Office of [he FulUrc:.~ &s"' .u Wrdt, '" Fdl. Ig77. ,,6.
60. Wilh "KB of RAM, i. COSt $1198 and u6)8 with 48KB of RAM; Jet th. original prilin
displayed a,"Apple II ,ompulrr; oldcompu,ers.nrl/appleii,html.
61. Apple'.lirs, disk drive was nor av::lilable until july 1978, al whieh poi'" Ihc COSI for drives had
dropped d,amacic:illy.
h. See Vic.or K. rvkElheny, "Compu(er Show, Previ~w of More Ingenious Models; Compu(rr
Show Confirms Trend in \I/idening UK ofTedmology; Nrw York Timrs,'6 june Ig77. H,g.
6). See Richard \\~ Langer. "Compurrtli Find" Home (Youn): Nrw York Tinsa, as Aug. 1977. C41.
64 S !..ev}', H..d<er1. 26S.
6S. Ibid.. 167.
66. See"TlME r.uga:rine C<wtt,"The Compuler, Mxhinr of rhc Ye~-jan.), IgIl-Person
of lhe Yur-Sciena md Tcdlnology-Cornpu[ers-Machinu," 'l\'WW.rime.com/rimr/cov_
en/o,166,,1,1g.l!)0l0},oo.h,ml.
6,. Sec IBM Informarion SY5lems Division. Enuy Systems Busincss,"Preu Rdc:ose' Per~nal
Compurer Announced by IBM: 11 Aug. 1981), IBM online archives, www-l.ib",.cOln/ibm/hisloryldoc:um.nl$l pdfl pcpress.pdf.

Silk,," Va/lry

I. Sen,1hr Triumph of It.. Nerds: The Transcripts. Parr 11I"(PBS,June 1')96), .............. pbf;.orgl
nrrds/par<J.honL Sen, \he triumph of m.. nerds:-Triumph of Ii.. Nerds: "The T nnscripts. Pan
III; hrrp:/Iw-,pbs.orgIncrds/pan}.hm"1. In :Ill in.trYie:w Wozniak oaid,."1 grr man: mention than I dcstn"C. For somr reason I gcr
this key position of being One of twO prople lhal sl:lnrd the comrant thaI Sfanrd ,he revoIu
.ion. S.e'.. and I get a 101 of crrd.ir, bu, Mike Markkula w:u probably morc rcsponsible for OUr
early succe5S, and pm n~ft. hur about him" (Ja~n Zasky. "Slev~ WOlniak Inlerview-Apple
Compurer-Busin""s-Failurc Ma8'lline; /'all"re Magazine, failurcmag.coml i ndcx.php/fulurel
article! s,e.'cwo=iak-.in.~rviewl).
). AccOl'ding to Forbes.com,

M.ukI<ula w:u Chairman of m. Board of Apple Compu.er fromjanuary '977 lO MJy .g.8}
and from Oaober I\I9J to Fdlrnary.')96 and was a dirrctor fmm (977 m '997. A founder of
Apple, he held a v:tritey of positions rherc, including Proiden./ChirfEnrorivc Officer and
Viet. Prcsidcn. of Marketing. Prior (0 foundingAppk. Mr. M",lckuh w:u wirh Intel Goopo.
ntion as MarL-.cring M:onagrr. Fairdlild umCf:l and In<ltUmcn. Corpor;>rion :as Markning
MalUgrr in rh~ ScmironduclOf Di''ision, and Hughes Aircnn:l.S a member of m.. rechni
c:aI sraKin (he company'$.csarch md devclopmenllaboralory. tArm:u Oifford Markkula
Profile-Forbes.oom; proplr..forbes.eom/pmlilel arm:l.S-cliKord.ma"dlUla/a8~'8).
of Nexi./Lcxis full lui searches on .sjune a006 from 1jan, 1\)80-1 jan. I\)go.
s Quolcd in Charles Brown, jay Hamilton, andJame. Medoff, E"'I,IQyrrs Large olld Small (Har.
vard Uni~t5i(y Preu, 1990), I.

199

Nor.... to Chapter 1

Su"Mor e Young
Young Millionai
Million~ireru..
6. Su"Mol"C
li, Plc:aK'
Ple~K: EuTl>p(
Europe Hu
Hali Pl~nty
Plenty ofEn=p
or Emrepret
\eurI, BUI
Ilur Too ~w
Few
nn~un,
Inn01"~IOf
[nnov~tol'5,"11K
":C,,~<>mill.. 4 Fdl.
'$"11NF."",omi'f
Feb. '9&9.
1989.
7. ~~Cindy
See Cindy Sk~'cki
Sk~'cki ~l
et ~l .. "RUk
"Risk Tak~rs;
Taker.; U.s.
U.S. N~II"
N,,,', 011,1
m,,1 World
Worlll Rrpurt.
R,porf. 16J~n.
26 )~,,- 1987.
1987 Also
AI~o 5C"
ICC
M~gnine~ COYer:
"TIME Mag:azin
Rilk T~kHs-F
'I':lkcrs-F>.
~r: Rislc.
cb. ,~.
IS. 1981-Scie
l\(e ~nd T~dmolog
'9h-5<;i(nc~and
TuhnoIO lly-Com
y-CompulpulerlersApple-llu 5ineu."
www.time.rom/tim
Appk-Bu
lincu," www.rime
,16641,19.I~1011~
.com!rile/eoverl/o
82011S.0.oojmnl.
n"!0C'0'C$!O,'~I
0.html. ".
_
CuMil Hartman
H~rtm~n."1',e
8. Sec Curtis
Independence,"
.1M Spirit of Ind~~n
IIlC" IJUIy
I)uly 19S~.
1\)8S. 46'
46:"' We
c~ 11K..
We haw:
h~ve l,,-ed
lived
through Ihe
the age
~ge of
ofbig
indulilfY and
~nd the ~ge of the giant
big industry
gi~nt corpor:ld
corpontl on. But
BUI I bclie,ve
~Iieve thatt.his
Ihalthil is
il the
fhe
age of the ~nt~p~n
entrepreeur:-Ro
ag~
neur:-Ronald
n~ldReagan,
Rugan: 'This
'111il is
il Amrdca.
America. You nn
can do anythl11g
~nything her~.here:-Te
d
Ted
Turner."
TumC1"."
Harlem, 258.
9. Levy, Haclm.1~
8.
lo.j"hn
M~yn~rd ~nel.
10.
John Ma)nard
Keynel, lbr
111<' er....
Gener.,]
OJ Emplo,"'r
mi Throry Of
E,,,pi"!"I.m,
j"urrJlo'l"
>H.lnure
Mo"" (Atbmic
S/AnJd M'mty
(Arbntk
Publilhers &
&: Diuribut
Publisher
Diarriburors.
orl, 1006), ]51.
11. In me early
urly [Went~th
II.
twentieth ce1\[ul)',
ccntury, Louis
Louil Br:lJlde;'.
Bnnddl, for eumple,
eumpk, ~ritidud
critidud nilro:ld5
as"unKientifirailro:lds u"unscien
til1"
c~lIy" run and mus
call{
tllIlS i....fficitn
inefficient ~nd
and undcntrv
undenerving of public:
public support
IiUpport (lbomas
(Thom:u K. McCra....
McCraw. Pr<>phm
PllIpbclJ
of Regul"ri"
0fRrguloll
[Hlr""rd Univnsir
Oll" [Harvard
Univetllry Prcs.s.
Pl'CIil. 1984].
11184).1l3)
93)
12.
example, David E. Lilientha
11. For example.
LilienrhaL
TVA.: IX"'o,r.."
l),om<>cracy e"
l. TVA:
"I"rel. (Harpt-r
on /he
(Hlrper & Bromers,
lhe: March
Brothers.
t944)
(944).
.
.
13. Stt
Sec Eugme
Eugene ViCtor
Il.
Vietor Ro5l:ow.
RoiIQW, Pwnni"lf
PMnningfor Frwlom,
Frudem: lIN
111<' P~b&
I'ublk lAI...
Law of
4 Ammcan
"'mtri<,,~ Cap,wlm
C"pir"limlll (Yale
(Ylle
Univel1lity PruJ,19S
Prell, 1959).
Uniw:rsir
9).
.
.
.
Cbuiel of thiJ
14. Classics
this school of Ihought
thoughl include Richard Posner.
POlner, &""om;< A",dpu
"'~"'Jlil of lAIlI,(Lin
L"w (Link
l~
Brown, 1974).
1\)74), and
Brown.
~nd R. H. Coa.."
Colle. 11N
Tht Firm.
Firm, !Ix
rll<' Marie",
M"rfm, alld
,,~d 1M
rll<' La",
Law (Uni\'el'$i
(Univu1Iiry
ofChic~g
o Prus,
ty of
Pre",
Chicago
tI)38).
19S8).
.
IS. Stt
Su Daniel
Dlniel Bell,
ts.
Bell. Thr
Tht uming
G>ming a/
of PlHrilldw
p<JJti~duJrtritd
ri,,' Sori<t]
Soc,<cy (Basic:
(Bal;c Books.
I\ooks. (976);
1976): Man: Un
Uri Foral,
Ponl.
1M
InjOfJllOlri
on
Eco~a"'y: Drjinllion
The InJar-i<:>n EcOllDmJ'
!Xjillirioll and
Q"d Mnu~rr"....
M.",urem'~l
(U.S. Departm
Dcp~rtmeenr
nr of~
..f (US.
QfCommeTce.
Office
.Offioe
ofTclUQ mmuniat
ofTcln;o
mmunicaions.I\)7
tionl.lgn1):
); and Anthony G. Ontinger
Otrtinget. Ekmrrrll
EIr",rnlJ of
<>/ I,tjormauo
/Jljorm"tiorrn R<SI>Un"n
Rela"rerJ
Policy: B",rfill
PoliC]:
,1",1 B.",ft"s
B""I'~J i"
Jkntjits and
I'" rM
Inc Nt'"
Ncw W"rld
WQrl,1 "/
af Libr~rJ
Libr"ry a,,<1
Q~II Orh.r
Illform"r,,,,,n Sr.....
Dlhrr In/"r",mio
$rrllicel
(Hlrvard
ias (Harvard
Univcniry,. Prog....
Prognm
Univcnity
Infonnatiion
on Tcchnolo
m on InfortT\.1t
Trchnologics1Jld
PoIicy,19
gits and Public Policy.
7S)'
'9'7~).
.'
,6.
See Jan-mnc
)"n.Fran :ois
roil 1-fOI'l.--d.
ty<!t:lrd, 1hc
16. Set
1lJ<' PlHuftoa
Posulloor""
rn Colldiuo"
G>~Jir;,,~:, A
'" &",,"
R'porl OIl
o~ Kno"'lt:dt
KmK'kdgct (Un~t
(Un;ven;y
ry of
MinnCliQtlh Pra.s.1g.8
Prell, t984)
MinnClO
4)
17.1k1l.
Tht u.ming
af PoJrilld~sl
17.
p."ri~,lulsrial
Bell. Theri,J Sirfy,
Coming "f
Soci.ly. 1)8.
1~8.
Fr~nk Weimer
18. See Fr:lJlk
WeImer and
lnd Kevin Robbins.
Robbinl, lrr/"r",ali
I~fornlnlia"rr
ll Trrh"ol<:>g
1i:dmolagy:
Lu,Wu An~l,ljJ
AIl,,1ylil (Ablrx..
y: A L~ddirr
(Ablex
1986). and
Publishing.
~nd Nicho\.:u
Nichol:u Garnham
g.lg86).
Glmh~m.. -lnfortT\.1
-lnfonna rion
Society' as
ali lhcory
tion Socitty'
Thcory or
Or Idrology'
Idcology: A Crill'
Criti
c:o.l PC1"s~"
Pel1lpcctil"/,,
vc; bifor",,,ri
cal
M, Com","""
Co",,"u~ic'''lion
nlio~ ""d
...,u"i,,".
(2000): 1]9
a...l Soci'ly).
ll\)
1. no. 1 (1000):
.. .
exceptions areJamc5
19. The cxuprion
lre)~mCII Beniger. 1hc
Tht c"rrlrol
ClIllllll &.""~rior
R.voIuI1onr:: T....hrr""'r
Ttchnal<>gical
ic,,' and
"n,' Econom...
ECDnomir 0riK''''
Origin,
<>/ III<'
I.iforml!lio~n Sirl}
0/
rlx Infor_tio
S",irl! (Harvard
(Harvnd Univenit
Univcrliry Preu.
PrClI. (989).
1\)8\)). and.lal~
and, Ilre;n
glme, Manuel
M~nud Cas
in the gam~
Cal"
telll, Thr Informllli
"iformi1li,"ll
rell5.
,~ "'gr:
E,,,,,omy, Sirly.
Agr' EtoIlOm],
Socirly. lI"d
Cullure
(Blultwdlll Pub, '999).
and C..
1J~,.. (Blackwe
19119).
10. Set
See Zbignicw
all.
Zbillnlew Br:ainro
Brtt>:in,ki."Americ
. "Americaa in the Technetr
Tcehnerronic Age,"
Ale." fnl....
E"<,,u~I"
rr.t....."]O
(11)68): 161.6;
}O (1968):
16"l.6;
)~mCl
M~rtin. Tdt:mal"
'Rlc",,,,i, Sori<tJ'
James Murin.
Sod"y' A
A eJ,,:,1Ic"fl'
CI"rl1r.lgr for T"I'IIOITOW
Tomorrow (Prcntia"
(PrenticeH:aII.
-Hll1. I~I);
1\)81): and
lnd St~
Slel'hen H.
Ct~I",lil'llilm
Lawrence,. UIlIMlila
Dcce~l",'illllli'>rr'
llr;an: 11N
ri"n a"d Dn"rnrnJi
Tht Comp..
C<>mrllni
cII/,o", G>nHl'CliD
rr"alions
UnivC'<Con_fl" "n (Hlrv~rd
(Ha~rd Vn,vcr'
ity untet
Center for Informati
.ity
Informltion Policy RClIun:h.
Rescareh, 198]).
198).
.
11. Su
al.
Stt Tom Wolfe, "Whar
"Wh~t If He Is Right;"
Rightt' Thr
Tht Pt<"'p
Pt."'p Ha_
Ha"U' Gan!
Gllng (Fa""r.
(F~mlr. Scr.lUJ
Str.llU 8<
& Giroux,
G,roux.
1968),10 7-n
(968),I07
-UII. Set
See Dunnn
Dunc;rn Malth~ws
11.
Mltthew l,, GIoN/i,;r
GI<Jl,aliJi"r!g InIrU....
Inltllr,ru,,
Prop'r!y Rights (Roudcdg
l~af1 Prr>pnl]
(Routledge_
1001), I~.
IS
e. 100a),
I).
Su hhiel
lthid de Sola Pool,
1]. ~e
Pool. Tt,hnolog
Ttcl."ologiel
of Frud"",
Fmdo", (H.rv~rd
84)'
i~ ,,/
Uni\'f'rsity Press.
(Harvard Univc:rsir
Prell. 19
(1)34).
Ibid.. I.
14. Thid
.
..
cd
IS. Set
Sec David
D.vid Kajrys.
~.
Kairys. "Freedom
"Frdom ofSpen:h
ofSpch I,"
I; in Thr
Tht Politics
Polirk. 0/
of lAIw:
,..... A
'" Progros,v
Plllfrm'....t Crru,/w.
Criliqu,. ed.
Klitys (~nd>eon
(P.nrheo n.
Kairys
1\)81). ll1-71.
1)7-7~.
. Igh).

s..:

u.vy.

&""""'''

s..:

Soci<t,

1'"

""d

200

Notcs to ChaPler
Chapfer 1)
NOtu

26. Scc
See Br:lJld.
Brlnd. 1'"
16.
Mr,fj" Lab:
!.db: lllwn",,!
The- Mrdia
I~vtnlillg llx
rll<' F~I~rr
Fulure al
"I M/T(Vtk
MIT (Viking
Adult.
1987), 114.
ingAdui
114_
r. Ig87),
17. Su
Mlrvin, Whr"
n.
Sec Marvin.
Did Trch"olog
TI.nologirl
\Vhen Old
itl Wr...
W'n: Nr....
N,.... 7'.
71, and
~nd Claude
Cbude S. Fischrr.
Fil(her, A",rriro
Am,ri,,, Carlin!
G>lIi~g
(UnlveTiiry
ty of
OfCllifo
(Univcui
rnila P,us.
Presl, 1994),
Californi
1\)94), 111-S4.
U2-H.
See"Ig.82 Bnxhun'
Bl'O(hun: for m~
18. Scc"I981
the IBM Ptnonal
Peno.....1CompulC1
COlnpulC","
r." digiril(.lc
digirize.t vlIlilel.co
m!ilemlh981-ibm"
n61cs.ro m/ilemlb
ll8l-ibm.
p<'TSQnll-compllle
r!'
pcnon:aI"
<:ompuler!.
"9. Ad productd
19.
produccd by Chiatt!D
Chiltt/D ay and
~nd dJrwnl
direcrn:l by Ridley Soon.l1n
Scott, fintl broadca.or
broadc:ut during
durinllth
1984
mee Ig84
SUJ'C'r Bowl.
Howl. Malon~
Mllone calls
Super
c:allilhe
ad"rhe biggeSI
biggeJt spl.1sh
rhe .d"lhe
Ipluh in thc
Ille history
hi5l0ry of adverti5in
~dverdsing"
g"(Mich~
(Michaeld S.
Mllone, I'!finilr
t'ifi~il< IAop
Malone.
Loop [Currtncy
[Currency/Double
!DoublcddlY,
rll9ll), 174).
~74). Also
ay, 1ll99],
Als.o 5
sec S3nh
Sinh R. Stein,lhe
Stein, lhe'1984
'lg8"'
M;tCI~tcn.h Ad,
Ad: Cincrn~ri
Madnr..u
Cincm~tJcc Icons
Iconllnd
ConJtirutivc Rhetoric in the
and Colurirur
Ihe Launch
l.Junch of a1 Nta'
New Mxhinc,"
Muhine"
QUllrltrlyJ....
Jour~~1
Q-rrrrly
ofSl....cn88,
ma1 afSpcrcb
no, 12 (W01):
(~001): 169-91.
88. no.
161)-\)1. Yet most
mOJl of the ~ttenrion
ltlemion for the ad
ld co.rrw:
c~me
inlide me
the advertisin
from inside
advertilinll
indullT)'. whe~
where il
g induslT)',
it rn;eived
received Jeverll
uvcr~l aw~rds.
~w:trdl. The ~d.
ad, by mOlt
mo.t Koounu.
:atroI1l1IS.
t~n Mrionally
nllionally only once during thc
ran
Ihe 1984 SU?,,1
Super Bowl, and
l11d it wa.
wl. nOt rypinl
typi,,1 even of Apple's adver"
~d....,r
tiJing. which
whkh genCr:llly
gcnenlly used aI much blander,
dling.
bl~nder, plain folks
follu. approach
~pproach,, ~mplu5iz
emphlsiz ing U$C
e:lH of tiS(
UK and
Ind
funClio,,~lity,
foruamplc.
functionm
le, dw:
Ihe coIkction
ty. Sec, foreump
cullution of Appk'l
Apple'. prinr:aW
print ~d. at
It ",,,,,(/,,,d,
www.lre.l
un~,org/!
AuachrJ. .........arc
sJuna.org
attlched/fcompulcr
computerilistoryf
~ttachn:l
hillory!a~!inlcm.
awJimernarion:al!
~tional/appk..
~pple.
)0. EdWlrd!
dJlcU"CI Nr~roma~
]0.
Edw.lrds discussts
Ne"r"man<cr.
lV"r GamrJ.
ur, lVar
~nd
G"",rJ.an
d 1i:rrniMI
urminar<MUlenli\
:>rurens;"'c:ly
lnd suggens
lugseliitIhcy
ely and
hey
hld ~a signil1can
lignific~ntt role in me
h~d
the %eirgcist
zeitgeist of
or lhe
the 1980s
1\)80$ on Edwards.
Edw~rdl. Thr
1hc CIoJed
Claud 1V""IJ.j1
Warld, J27-4S.
AI50 5
Ke
7-4S. Also
Friedm.n., &r,u
Frin:lman
Ekari( D...
"mJ.
Drranu.
:It. Scc
See Anne Anable.
Anlble, "Comput
)1.
"Compulers
eu Mad~
Mlde ro
to FttI
Fccl al~,"
at Home" NnA!
N,w Yori
Yorle 1I1'11tS.
Timrs. 9 MU.I98<>
Mlr. 1980,. CIO-Il.
CIO-ll.
]l."A Bright
Hrlght N~w
New WOlid
World of Home Comf"Jte
ComPUI~rn:
s; Doing .he Homewo rk,
rk: Yotlng
YOUl111 Expcru
Expertl TIps
Tips On
Bu);nll; \lIher~
\Vhere ro Shop:
Shop; ~1 Compute
Buying;
Glosl1ry."- Nr'"
N,w York TimeJ,
Compule r GloJlary'
Times, 4 June
JIUle 1981.
1\)81.
n. A Lcxi5
}}.
Luis/Nn
illuCC'h
!Nuil..,a
rch of m~r
m.jor U.S. and
lnd world publicatio
publiC1lrions
ns for lhe
the word SpmulJhU
Iprc"dsloce!l before
r\)831um$
19S3
hilS.111e
rurn:s up 18 hiT5.
year 19S1
198J turnS
"The ~ar
tUml up
lip &9
89 hilS;
hi'l: 1984. no hilS;
hill: and
lnd 198s,
I\)SS. J~6
)S6 hits.
hill.
J4. Sec Marbach.
M~rb1Ch. "To E.ach
l4.
Elch His
HiJ Own Computer."
NewsW<'<k
r'- Nrwl..
Feb. Ig81,
1\)81, SO-~6.
wle.. 8 Fa..
SO56.
3slbid.
lSlbid.
J6. SC"
See Mikhail
Mlkhlil Sergcevic
Sergeevich Gorbache
l6.
Gorblchev. MemoirJ.
M.mairl. lranS.
tr~nl, George Pcronans
Peron.nslky
ty and
lnd Tl~~na
Vlr_
Taljana Va,llavlky {Doubled
(Doubkday.
savUy
.y, '996).117
Iwll). 217..
J7. Scc
Sec Snwt
}7.
SlU~rt HalI."On
Hlll,"On Pomnodc
PoSlmoe/ernilm
mism ~nd
and Articulat
Articulltiion:
on: An InrtrYi<w
Imerview ".;m
with Snurt
Sru~rt Hall,"
Hall." cd.
Llwrence Groubcrg.
Grossbcrg.jourmd
LaWTCnce
}o~""'" DfG>mmu~
i("rion l",,~iry
ofCa",,,,~,,iraltorr
Ifl</uiry '0.
10, no.
nO. a1 (1986): 4S.
4S_
J8.)ohn Sculley.
Sculley, speaking
l8.John
$pe~king in Sc,n."1he
Sen, Lne Triumph of the N~rds:
Nerds: 111e
111c TnnfCTip
tl, P~ct
Transcriprs.
III."
Part Ill."
Levy, Hacke".
H"clcrrs. 7.
7_
19. levy.
Sec Art Klciner."A
K1einer,"A History
40. Scc
Hillory ofCon.N'~
ofC,""ulio"
li"" Q""ntriy
Qu"rc'rlJ: inIn Nr'Wl1b<o
Ntll~ 11>.11
S,"J'd ~"'I.
Ntll~, '974-194
1 5la~d
'974-19$4'
1t~ Yran
Yr"rs ofCand~l
ofCcrvol"lio~
T~rr
Q""rltriy.n:I_
i"" Qo<arrrrly
ci.llr:ln
~nd Kkiner
Kleincr (North
Brandd and
(No<th Point
PoilU PrQS.
PreIS, .986).
1986).)71
)71..
See ibid .. J)6-)7.
41. Sec
3]6-)7.
42. Sec Levy.
Levy, Ho(Ie
41.
H"ckm.
197-98.
....., '91-98.

j"""

tnc

s..:

CHAPTIIa.
R 4
(:HAPTlI

Crocker,"lntrrvicw
I. Steve Crocker.
lnlerview wirh
with Sreve
S"w: Crocm,
Crocker. CEO ofShinku
ofShinlr uro.lnc,.
"'ETF
ro.lnc.'-I
jour",,11 (Spring
ETF)o~rnall
1006), www.iso
www_isoc.c.org!roo
1006).
org/tool.b/blogs/i
/blogs/i.
t50urn~l/
~p: 7r~mQre'
erfjourna
l!'p:71.m
71
on;11.
2. For a=1plc,
enmpl", in the
1.
Ih. wonU
wordl oEVirgin
ofV;rglnlia~ Posrrd.
PoItrel, cdilOr"of
edilor of Rnuo"
R...."" maguinc
m~g.ZillC.,"Ihe Net
Nel bcamc
bca.me
model of sponl2nCD
spontane ou'
a~ modd
order and
~nd dKcJ1n-a
UJ onJn
deecntt~lliud
ized governa
go.ertllnncc-of
ce-of the way.simp
w~y limple.un
derlying
k. underlyin
g
rukl can permit rnormou
rults
enormOUsI autivity ~nd
compluir y. This
and complexit
'Ihil dynamic.
dynamic, optn"~nd
open-endcd
ed vision
vilion docs nor
not
5t euily
61
c.a5i[y with rh~
the technocratic model5
moe/ell that domin~tc
domina" rhe
the po[;tical
political world." For libcrr~ria
Iibert~rianslikc
nllike
POltcd. in orh~r
Posrrd,
other worda,
words, me
the supposed
IUPpoICdly IplInrll1eO
sponlaneous
UI ocder
order of me
the interner looked liltc
like the mark~t
mlrket
(Dcclan McCullagb.
(Decbn
h."1he
Laugh b
Is on Gore.,"
Ln~ Laugb
Gor"," Wim
Wired NrwJ.
NewJ. I]
2) March
M~rch 1999. www.wird..rnmlpo
ed.com/polil.i"
tiCl/I~w I ncwJ!Ill9
newi/1999!O]!
rics!lawf
9/0)/r86S
S/).
1ll6S~f).

'lI9lI.

'"'"'

Notes to
co Chapt~r
Chapter 4
NOte5

).
SajantT Abbare,
Abbalt.IIll'('lIli"g
c~ 1memel
Ctru;:;:i, A Ifulory
HiJloryoj
J. 5.~ne,
Im,,"llIi~g rllt
Imrmrl (MIT Prtu.
PI',"". aooo);
~OOQ); Paul
P~ul E. Cern::;:i,
of
Moden. eo",puti"i'
Compurin: (MIT Pttu.
P",... ao<))):
Gilliu and
iJ,.. Web
lV~s
Modrm
~ooJ); andjamu
~nd~mes Gillies
~nd Rolxn
Robert Cailliau,
Uilli~u. How lilt
Wrb W<U
&Oe,,: 1""
5r,,'] "jrM W"rld
Wiae Web
(Oxford UniVtt'Siry
UniVffSily Pttu.
P",u. USA. ~).
~ooo).
TIw Sl"'7411~
\\'orlJ Wuk
IIH (Oxfol

a.m.,

4, Tamfon
Gillupit. "Engincmng
"Enginttring a~ Principk,End'fO.E.nd
Principlt:End.{O.End' in the
Iht Design
Daign of tht
Imernel; Soc;"/
Soci,,1
..
T~rkfon Gillespie,
the Internel;
Srudirs "j5fimc,
j6, IIJune
~oo6. 'P7-S7,
SlwliN
of Sfi<"u J6.
June ~006
n-57.
S.
Abb~lt "'pores
Iht 19701,conm.ry
1970', oontr.lry 10
fo fhe
ARPANIl'r pl~n,
5. A~te
rcporu chac,
WI. in the
IDe ARPANET
pbn. "tmail
"nn.l.iI quickly Ixc.tme
became The
the
necwork', m<l
mOil popular and
~nd inlluemw
inlluentialltrvice,
all apt:uions-(Abbare,
eXpt'Clation5' (Abbacr, 1"Vl""ritig
r~
nawod.s
KrYiu. "lrpaning
surpus;ng:aI1
r"''I",,'i,,: 1M
IlI/efllel,101).
I"rrrnrt,
10]).
Licklider 1nd
o( [n(ormarion NelWOrIa,Nerwork; 1'r<Kmli"g'
oj lilt
IheIEEE
6. Licldioo
and A. Yan,'Applicarions
V......=. "Applicarlons oflnfonn..rion
Prourai"g. of
IEEE 66,
no. IIII (1978)'
(1918)' 13)0-46.
1))0-46.
,.
Sr;t Michae[
Haube,n, Ronda
Hauben, and lllOmu
TruJroll,
Ntriu,,,, 0"
On I~
rl>r HimTJ
Hi>!,,'] Q"d
<Ina
7. Sec
Mich~1 Hauben.
Rond~ Hauben.
Thom"" T
<USCGrt. N.li:r~.,
1",1"''' "jUsrn<l
I"" Imern,r
(\Vilty.IEEE Computer
Com pUler Siel)'
1"'1"""1
of Uunrl "nd
."d II,.
Imrr~'1 (Wiley.IEEE
Sociery Pr,
Pro 19'91),
(997), a54.
~54.
Conway, "The
lbe MPC Adventures:
Ad"entures: Experirnces
Expc:riences with
wilh Ihe
Gene..acion ofVLSI
ofYLS[ I)"sign
Dr.ign and
8. Lynn Conway.
the Genr..,tion
~nd
Implcmenlation Methodologies:
Mcehodologiel; MilroJ,rocmi"g
Micr"pl'<l(m;ng 'lIId
/',Iitr"progl'l,mllli"g 10,
'0, no. 4 (Nov.
(NO\'. 1981):
Implementation
Q"d Microprogr'lmmi"g
'981):
~09-~8, Also
AI,o available online as
"Ll'nn Conwai'
MPC Ad"""turrs
A,hencur.. >l
al X"rox
Xerox
109-28.
~s Conwal"
Conwa~."Lynn
Conway's YLSI
VLSI Mile
PA RC; 19 Jan. 198,.
1981, 'u.""cs.umich.
ai.=cs.umich.edu!peopltlronwal'!YLSI/M
PCAdvlM PCAdv.hcmL
PARC;
.,Ju/p""pI,,/ ronw~y/VLSI/M PCAdv/MPCAdv.luml.
9, Conw~y.
Conw~y, "Lynn Conway's
ucrer R.:tfOSpI;"..,:
RecrOlpuli"e; Ly""
H",,,ep~gc, ai.=cs.umich.edu!
9.
Conw~y's Urur
Ly"n Co"""'y
eo"""" Ho",rpQ~.
~i.ttC,.umich.fflu/
pcoplt!ronway/Rcerospecti...,T,hlmJ. S
cspc:eialll' 'u.ttCI.umich.rdu/pcopidconw:ly/Rrrro.
ai.=CI.umich.edu/peopltlronway!Rcero,
pcoplclronway/R.:trmpri...,T.hIm!.
So ""piaIl)'
'J>li""J.hlml.
spccri...,J.html.
10, Datnis
Denni5 RiKhir.lhr
Rirchie, lbe E,...!ution
E\"Olution o(
rhe UniJ:
Unix Tin..,Sharing
I.~"g""gc Drs,!"
!J<'lig" ""d
10.
of the
nme.Sh~ring Splem;
S)'5<""': in U."F~
.. nd
Prognll"''''''g MtthodologJ.
M<lI",,/ofogy, 198o.
lS-)S, dx.doi.orgho.10011
)'HO'0974S'7_a.
Pr"fl"'",,,,m:
I~. 15-n.
cb:.doi.Ofgho.1001/JHo-097.5L~.
II, Crodttr.
Crock-r,"lnrerview
o(Shinkuro, loe:
II1C:
11.
"In~ wi,h
wid> SteVe
5<""" Crocker, CEO ofShinkuro,
11, M. Doyle,"XEROX.
TANG, and DARPA.:
DARPA.; DouQm4liMl.
Dur~""I!I'P", I Ca.
Oct. I98J,
198), 16J-64.
.6j-6...
u.
Doyk, ~XEROX. TANG.
I), Conw:lY.Lynn
Co"w~l" "Ljnn COn.....ys
ConW1Y'S c.~
c.."'~r Rnt'OSprive.~
Retrospective:
lJ.
14. Doyl".
Doylt,"XEROX,
TANG,:llld
a6).
'4.
XEROX. TANG,
and DARPA;
DARPA: 16J.
IS. Alu
Roland and Philip Shim~n poinr
rh~, the
Ihe program faill
at ilS
primary miuion'5.
Alex Robnd
poinf our
OUt th~1
f:l.ikd al
ics prim~ry
missionc"'aling machint
romribulw in various
vlriOUI ways
way, 10
ro SOme
some of its
ilS original
goalllnd
",""ating
machin" inrdligcnce-bul
inrelligt'ncc-bur conrribulffl
origln~1 pis
~nd
10
genec:1I improvrment
impr""emenr of
o(high
ptrformanct computing.
compuring. Set
Alu Roland
Rol1nd and
to Ihe
the g<'lIual
high prrfom,ancc
&1' Alex
~nd Philip Shi
Shiman.
ll1~n, S/rmrglf
SIMrgir C,,"'puling
Com/,utillg (MIT Press.
P",", 1001),
l00~), J15.
)lS.
'6. In 1999,
public.tlll' revuled
her websil"
wrb'ilecllal
Ig60s sh"
she had
l.c:x
16.
1999. Conway publioUy
revr~l"d on h.r
lim in Ihe
thr 1,,60s
h~d undergone
und"rgon" sex
change ,urgery.
consC<jutncc wu
wlS fired
fictd by IBM, and
for<:ed to r<:rrcalr
new 1;(.,
life in whal
wh"
changr
surgery. as a~ con&equenc"
~nd was forc<:d
re'CreUr a~ nrw
,he
calls 'sft~lrh mod,,"
mode" in lhe
puc be,
onll' to
ro close
sh" call.<"srulrh
th" 1970'
19705 and 19801, lecllng
kITing her pUt
be known only
dOl" friends
fTi"nds
us<>ci~ltI. Since ""'king
making her pUt
pur public.lhr
public, Iht hu
has breome
~dvocate and supponrr
supporter of
o( othu
orher
and usociol.
beoom" an ~dvoc:al"
cc:ullStlcual
and rransgcndtr individulls.
o( this
Ihi, 10
co Ihe current
cur",nr discussion
discuuion is mOS!
mOlt
m.nSSU\1~llndtr~nsga>du
individwIs. The rckvanu
relr''anCe of
obviowll'
lila! Iht cultura[
chongts of
o( ,h.
inlide the
rhe invisible roIl"8"
college of
o( computrr
rompurer "ngir>ttf'S
engintCrJ
obo.~oudy dulthe
cullUr.U dung
lhe 19101 insidt;
hdptJ
m~kt heT
her 1Ue<In:n
research possibk.
possiblt. Her pUI
past ,,u
wu nor
unknown 10lhOle
who did
background
hdp.-d m<IU
not unkno.n
to Inc- "'00
did. a~ badr.ground
check $0
so th.u
rhar 1M
slit could
coold gain sccuri'l'
clur:mre (or
de(enle "...n.
work. 11"c
such ~a penon
pt'r~n "."
was granted
granc.d
cheel::
suriry oonoee
f.... dcfen5c
lNt sud>
securi,y ck~"'11
cltar~l1ct to
ro work On cutting-edge
cut'ing"edgt milirary
miliruy ICthnoiogy
lechnology in the
che Prnr:agon
Pencagon is a~ sign of
o( cui
cuI
~a sccuriry
wral ch.lngu..
ch~ngcs, Bur
Bm 1M
,he hu
has also hinlCd
hinted that her apcricnc",,:IS
experiences as a~ "..."",n
woman (and transgrn<lu
rran.gender pt:non)
person)
1Ur.U
ofrered n"w
new kinds
kind, o(
in,ighrs:'lr's hard
ro pul
pur:i~ Iinguon
finger On iI,
ir, bur
wu jusc
ever $0
so much 010'"
olfue<!
ofinsighcs:"lis
h~rd to
bul I w:II
jusHvet'
more
im~gillad,'(
Crc:lri,"t th~n
rh~n be(o",
rranlirion-elpiallj' nocicing
Ihal I had
vudl' impro.....d
improw:d
im~ginari
..... and
~nd ClUri,..,
before transition-""pially
n<>eKing Ih~t
h~d vasdy
capabilidCl
al visu~lizing
vi,uaJizingand
simuilling compk"
complcx...cial
inleraccioru" (Conw:lY.
(ConW>.y:lynn
cap~bilit;cs ~I
and mtn"lIly
menully slmululng
soc:i~1 interaction.'
"Lynn
Conwa)",
CoIlWar'l Caftu
Calttr Retrmprive).
Rtlrospc:erivt1.
17,
See Pannris."Machines
Panzaris,"Machinu and
Romances; 155.
CSS,
'7. Se"
~nd Romances:
18,
CommemS 10
ro 1a Stratrgic
Stralegic Computing
Compming Study
Sludy Advisory Committee
Commilree meeting
meeling
,8. Ihrry
Bury !"tillcr's
l..cinu's COmmentS
ArlingTon, Virginia.
Virginia, on
"+ Januuy
Janu~rl' 1995,
~'" summarized
sunulloriud by
by Roland and Shiman, S/r4rrgi,
SlrMcgir
in Arlington.
On 14
Ig95. arc
Co"'puti'lg, '47.
147.
eo"'puriOig.
202

NOlu ro Ch;,rpter"
Nores
Ch~ptcr 4

See Abbue,
Abbate, 1",'(',"i,,:
r~r loltrrnrr,
18.. ,
19 S
/m,,"OIriOig rht
Inrernrl. 184.
10.
Abb~rc writr:s,"On"
wrices, "One of
o( lhe
Iht mOl'
mOSI striking
Ilriking chingl
Ihings ~boUI the incernu
inrtmer in the
tht C9801
t930s w:lS
wu iu
ill metro
mere'
ao. AbNte
arie
o( 198s
abour 1000
aooo computers
h~d aceenlO
the Intttnet;
Inrtmer; by !he
,ht ,,"d
end of
oric: growth. In [he
th" (all
fall of
19Ss about
rompu'''1'S had:Kens
10 lhe
1987 meJ'
rhere
were almost
almos, )0,000,
alld byOaobttof
by Octob"'of 1989
15189 IDe
the numb....
number had
co IS9.000"
IS9,000" (ibid~
(ibid.,
l" wuc
Jo.ooo.and
h~d grown '0
186).
al. [bid.... 107.
~1.1bid
UJ7.
H. Robert
Robere E. Kahn,
K~hn, "MmlOrUJTnbut"
'Memori~1 Teibule to
to llorry
DLib M"l"zi...
Maga;:i,u 9.
9, no.
4, www.dlib.org/
:u.
B.any Leiner:
ui~: DW
~.dlih.orgI
dliblaprilo)1o.. cdirori~l.IlllllJ.
d!ib/apriloVQ4ed.itotUlhtm!.
1).
\Villiam]. Bro:ul,
Brold,"Penugon
Curlling Campul'"
Compurer A=:
Splif in
ill a~ Bid 10
lJ. Sec \V"illiam).
"P"n..,gun Curbing
Acnss, Global
G~ Network
NworI: Split
Increase I" Sccuricy;
Ncw York Ti"'N.
Tim". 5S(Xc.
'98), AIJ.
A,).
Ina."""
5o=rity: Ntw
Ckt. '98J,
"4.
~4 Ibid., AI)_
AIJ_
as For ,he
rhelOr1c ofklltl
li.cldl, se"
ICc SleUtrr.
S'rcercr, Selling
r81-8).
15
rhe rhetoric
ofk...,l playing
pbying fidds.
Selli"g r""
rM Air, 181-8,.
36. For cxample.
see Evrlyn
Evell'n Richardl,
"Scmic"nduclOr [nduSlry
WanlS N~,ion Technology
'Teehnology
~6.
uamplr.se(
Rich~rds. "Semiconductor
Industry Wanls
Iniriacive,- Walhi"gr""
[nitiativr.W".hi"groll P"lI,.o
Post o Apr.
Ape. 199',
'991. tli.
B,.
a1 S""
Sce Lo"is"
Louise Krho".
Kehoe:US
ComputeT Chiefs co
LObbl' Washinglon
W~shington in B~rrl"
B~rrle withJap~,,"
wirhJap~l1; Fi"Qn'
Fi'I'I".
17
"US Compuret
to Lobby
ri,,1 Tim",
8June '989,
'989,6.
d,,1
Times, 8Jun"
6.
'
RelC~rch Nerwork
Con"ni.. nCl al"
a8, N~tional
Nalional Rrsr.ceh
Research Council (US.).
(U.S,). N~rion~1
Nllional Rcsr~reh
18.
NffWOtk Review
R..vi"w Commiuu
~J.,
To"...nI Q~ N"lio",,]
Natio",,1 RNC4rrb
R,K<I....h Nrtll'O'*:
Ncrwo,* (N~tional
(N3IiQn~1 Aad"'lIY
AcadtlllY p"",",
Pras, (938).
'938). Mal'
pp. 4"S.
To...ard
M~y a),
lJ. 1989A, pp.
'5.
Mitroll Mudlrr,
Mueller, RRuling
I"" Root
Rooc (MIT P"",",
Press, 1004).
Milton
..ling lilt
100.). 9".
91.
39 KViin:'
Kahin's biography lisI"he
lius Iht (oIlowing
lupparrcrs of the
rhellP,
Bellcore, AT&T.
IBM. Hughes,
19
following as
2S 5UPpontts
liP: Bellcorc,
AT~.IBM.
Hughes.
1I<Io"..rol:l, Ens,
Nyna, Digital Equipment.
EquipmClH, Apple.
App[e. and
Microso(r. It
Ic collaborarcd
wilh a~ wid"
wide
MlXOrob..
EDS, Nynu.
~nd Microsoft-.
rol4bor.llffl with
rongt of
o( inSlirnrions,
Globalln(ormzcion
IIl(rurrucrnre Commission.
Commillion, tnc
Ihe Coalition
Co~liliol\
ran&"
instimtions. including
induding The
the Global
Inform.uion Inf'ruttuctuu
(Qr Networked InfonnariOIl,
Freedolll Forum, the
,he An""nbcrg
Anncnberg W:<.<hingron
Peogr:un, ,he
for
In~rion, Ihe
tnc Freedom
W~shington Program.
lhe
Library o( Congress, the Cross.lndllltty
Croll,lnduslry Working Team, [he
CompUler Sys"ml
Polie)" Project.
Projecr.
L.braryofCOngt'elS.
th" Compufer
Systrms Policy
and tho
rhe Intem>!ional
Tcieconlmullic.ttion Union.
UniOIl. Sec
Brian KViin.
Kahin, "Brian
~nd
In'cm~rional Tderommunicarion
S Briln
"Bri~n Kahin Bio;
Bio." Ilr"m
BriQn
K~hin Bio.
Bio, www.si.umichMln/
wwvui.umich.edu/~kahin!b;o.hlml.
K"Jrin
~hhinlbio.hlmJ.
)0. Offier
Office ofSc",nr"
o(Scienee and Technology Policy, 1hr
7".. Fed",d Hii'h
High Prrfcr"'Qner
~10rmal1Cr Computi"g
C"mpuring Prog
...."', 8
,0.
Progr"m.
pp. )1,
)5; quotnl
ill Klhin.
Kahin, "RFC 119:1
119~ (rfellg~)-Commtreiali;:~lion
Sept. 1989,
1989. PI"
J~, J5;
quol"d in
(rfeI191)-Comm"f<i~li~1<ion o(
of Ihelnrtmce
the Interne<
,ummary
report: www.faqs.org/rfes/tfcrr92.h'''d.
www,f~ql,org/rfCl/r(crI9a.hTnll.
summaty repott:
)1. High.Performance
High.Perform~ncc Compuling
Compming ACI
Act of
o( '990.10111
19\10, 10lst COllgrc...
Congress, 1.1
ld S"SS..
se55 .. Jj Apr. 1990,
ririe
Ig90, S. 106"
1067. tide
U,5ec,'01.
11,1"".101.

''',1,,,,1

3'

MilCh K~por,
ajelfcrsoni~n
)a.
Jl. Mitch
K~por. "\Vht'"
"Where Is the Digiral
Digir~1 Highwa)"
Highw~y RuUr
Really Heading!
Heading~ The Cue
Case for aJdf"fsonian
In(ormltion
Policy; Wirrd
Wierd II (July-Aug.199)):
94.
Informarion Policy:
(July~Aug.1991): S)-S\I.
5,-59. 9
ner 10"roadkUl
JJ. Th"
The arlit:st
carli... rrf....
",(erener
in(ormaciOrllupemighwar'
Lexis/Nexi' i,
il D~.~d
D~vid
}}.
fOroadkill on
On the information
IUprrbighw~r" in Luis/Nais
Landis, VHit:o
'Vrdeo I)c,alc:rs
Role in Ihe
High.Tech Furn",;
T..J..y, 11
la July
july 'l/9J,
(99), I.
ICC, !.i(c.
Landi..
De:aIer:s Seck
Sttk ~a Rok
the High.Th
FulUre," USA
USA. ToJ..,.
Life.

,D.

For example, Sec

D, M~rt-h.
M~rb3rh,"Tht
of Lasers; Nrw.........
Nrw>l.'uk, ,Jan.
)jan. 1518),
j6,~lhil
Fot-cumpk,
sec \Villian!
\Vtlliam D.
the Oaz:lt
D~ofLasrrs.
'!l8J. 16:lhis
install 1;,000 mil..
glaSi /ibcn
fibers in rornmerci.al
commerei,l system, xtmS
a"055 Ih.
coun"
will insnll,s.ooo
miks o(
of gIu4
th" coun.
Iry. Two'information
Two 'infolmarion lUpt:rhigh.....ysbcing
sllpt'rhighw~ys' being built
buill offibtt,oplKcable
o( fib",oplie c~ble will link Boston.
Boston, N"",
N.w yon:.
York,
try.
Philadelphia. and
~nd Wa5hing,on,
D.C:1he phrue"ek=onic
pl.ralC 'electronic highw:ly
highway syst"""
")'Item" dale'
as far
(,r b:ui
b~ek III
aJ
Phibdelphia
Wuhingcon. D.C."1hc
datr:s 1.1
15170:
ICc Ralph I..rt:
Lee Smi,b,lb.
Narion; 1br
7".. Nati"n,
May 1910,
t970; sec
Smi,h.lhe Wired
\\'ir"d N~riOl\:
Nillion, ,8 M~y
t970. 601.
JS Ric:hud
Richard I. Kirkland,Jr..
Kirkl~nd,jr., "Wlm
cht Economy Nels
,6 Dec. 1991. S9.
"Wh~t the
Needs Now: Fortun"
Forlu"r, 16
59.
)6. Alan Strwan,"NCF
Srcw>'lI,"NCF Flues
F1exel Its
[II Musdes:
Museles: Communi,,,,;o,,,
Commu"i(~li"llll"urn",ion,,1
(NO\', C!il9I):
J6.
bltu""I;"'I,,1 (Nov.
r99I), 13;
11;
quoling Congrusman
membe,r o(
House Science.
Scienu, Spatr.
Space, and Thnology
quoting
Congr~ssman Don Rilrtr,.
Ritter. ~ member
of rhe U.S. Hou""
Technology
Comminee.
Comllli,ree.
34
}4.

l'ur alone, AT&T

)ur

"fS''''''"

)1,
SceJoshua Quit/ner.
QUitmer, "Sellare
OKJ uB
$lB (or
N.llion~1 Computrr
Compmel Ncr:
Ne'" Y"rk
J7 SecJoshu~
-Ser:~l~ OKs
for Work 0"
On N~tionlJ
Net: Nr~'
York
Nrwu/ay,
Scp[. 1991.1S.
1991, H.
N
....sd"y. 11
11 S"I'"
203

Notes
Noces ro Ch'pter"
Chapter 4

of lhe f.der:ll rol. in providing or subsidizing network services."

44. All.n LcinWllnd m:lillo schoff@uu.psi.oom(ce,com.priv@psi.eom),lsJune I 99 0 .
45. Schoffstall,.mail tognu@to:ld.oom(cc:oom.priv@psi.com.ocp-ip@nic.ddn.mil).l;s"pr.I990.

48. Sec Kahin. "lncervie:w with Brian Kahin." 14 May ~OOI.

49. See Richard Wiggins. "AI Gore;and the Cuarion of che Inte:mc,; Fin< Mo"JQy ~ 1 Oct. 1000.
limmonday.orglhcbin/cgiwnplbin/ojs/indu.php/fm/;lltick/vic:wArrickI199/,0S.

SO. See Abb.ue:.l" ...... r'"f rM IlIlrmct.145

S,. Con"'lly.-n.. MPC Ad,-cnturcs; Eipmenus wirh the (ic,......oon ofVlSI Ouign;and
Implcmenntion Methodologie:s."
51. The imporrane< of Ihis mom.m was firs, suggested '0 me: by a eommenl made from th~
audiene< by Scon B<1dnc:r a' th~ confeunee"Coordination and Ad",;nisrra,ion of rhe Interne.l;
sponsored by ,h. Kenn<dy School ofGov.rnment's H1rva.d Informa,ion Infr:ISRunure Proj'.
Han=<!. Uni...rsiry, 8-10 s"pe.. ,\196.

10. Josh

Hyarr, "Hyperspace Map: Mosaic Help. Le:ad Usc:rs chrough Ml1e of Interner: &SIC"

Glob<, 19 Mar. 1994. I.

n. Cunpbdl. 11w RD...,,,.tic frlm ""d UN Spirit t>f Modern C,"lllmcmm,,,,
11- Jim Impoco. "TecImology licans Sound oK on chc: Digital Futur~; us. N~ .....nd 1Vfd
Report.] Mar I99J. 61.
IJ. Sec: Gary Srix."Domesricaring Cybc:nP'lCO:: Sriem!fir AmerJeo". Aug. 11193, 100-110.
14. Sec ibid., 105.
1. lbid.,IOJ.
16. Ibid .. 110.
I,. In <he lore I98Oa. B~r had bttn a foundc:r and adminim-aror ofNEARNET, a regional
TCP/IP ncol'Ork for NfW England univc:nitif$, including his ernployc:r, H.:l"m, which Iud
bun.1 particiP'l"t ill the nation.al in'erntt.
18. Sec: Scott Bradne:., "Why Nowr Ner.. ~,* IV4>r/d, 17 ~pt. 199J. www.sobco.com/nwwh993/
b<1dne:r-199l-09~7.html.

'9. Ibid.

1b< oomP'l"Y w;u origin:lUy QlW Mosaic Communiaoons but <hen changed irs n:lme co
Nc:QOIpe afret complaintS from the NCSA abouc ttadcrnark issues. To Ivotd confwion. che

W.

comP'l"Y is rmtred 10 here u limply Nctsapc.

al.lnJuly 1994, al kast ten companies had licensed Monic from che: UnivenifJ' of Illinois for
comme:rei...J developmenr, including the well'conn~ctedSprglalland Spry. See Elizab~lh Core
O<1n, "Mosaic Gives Guided Tour of Imerner; IVa,hi"gr4>" Pm/,July U.1994. F19.
11- Sec Clark. N.rMllpt1lm 99.
1J. Sec ibid., 100.
1... Sec ibid. 106.

Sec: Dave Farber. "Remarks ofJohn Perry Darlow to che: Firs, Imernational Symposium on
National Sc<urity:md Nation...J Comperitivene:...; 11 Feb. 1993. tuclileuonYlcc.nllmagazinul

1S. See ibid. 194.

16. Quocc:d in Kecg:m. "Re.1Ii[)' Disconion Field:
a,. See: Simson L Gatfinkel, "Is Sullman Sr~lled! One: of che Grealest Programmen Alive Saw
Fumre: Wh.re All Software Was Free. Th.n Rc:ili[)' Sec In.; IVirrd I (Apr. 199J): 101.

SURFPUN K/surfOOS9.Olt.
1- Ibid.
J. See Da,;d TOOl', "MTV Gns T;angkd;n me Ne:t: Tht 11..... (Lo.odoll), 18 M1Y '994, 164. Sec Conni~ Koene:nn. "E.-Mail'l Mouthpiece:: InJuS! a Yur, Wirc:d Magazine Hu Bc:oomc the:

Iishc:d a column which began. "Mosaic if. doing for rhe: lmc:mc:t right now wb:u VWak.
chc pnn-crbUI killer appliation. did for rhc: penon.aI c:ompucCt' around t9BO" (Bob Metcalfe:.
lhanlcs. NCSA, for Grad.....tillg .:l Few of Your Mouic Cybc:csr:in: InfoWorld. 6 June

CHAPTBIl 5
I.

Guide Down th.lnform.:ltion SuperhighW,:l.y; L<u lI"geks Ti"'.... 30 Mar. 1994. E,.

S. See Wolf. Wirrd-A R""'Q"rt. ,8-11.

6. See Paul K.eg:m,"Rc:aliry D'i$torcion Fic:ld; UpliJU4>"', I Feb. 1!l'97. www.upsidc:.rom/r.~is/

---

upper righr, a URl dispb)'. V.:I.ric:g.:I.r~ fonrs,:md of eoursc me abrlity 10 IIlO\"C co undcrlin<d linb
through ch. dic:k of a mouse-jus, like: Mosaic, NeCSClpe. and Imernet Explorer. Sec Ed Kml,
Tht IVb.>k 1.",,"(1 (O'Reilly 6 Associares.1991), 1J7-n.

mvm1scory.

"4

NOtcs to Cha.pru 4

18.

Thac discinaion rruly belollg

10 ~Tt

Metcalfe, JCom founder- wno in June 1994 pub-

1994. 50).
.19. Se:e: Wolf, "The (Second Phase of the:) Revolurion H~s Begun: /)Qn', Look Now. BUI Prodig)'.
AOL. md Compu~rvc Au AU Suddenly Obsolece-and MOS1ic Is w.ll on Its \Vay to Becoming ,he World's Sran<Wd In'C'rf:ace: \V-.....J (Oct. '1194).

205

----

N.""

46."THE TRANSITION: E%c<tprs from Oin,ons Conftt.ncc: on Sr,ce of che: Economy:

)Orfc 1ImCJ, 15 Dec 1991. BlO; riced in Gordon Cc:oo*. -NSFNET' Pnv:ori::acion' and the: Public
Inltte:S<: C2n Misguided PoIKy Be Con=tedr.l"-n.I99J. _.oookl'c:J"'It.oom/p.inda.shlmL
4'. Sec:John Schneilhwind,"AT&T's AU~n F.ucU wich Gore: USA TooQJ.Is Dec. l!Wa. 4B.

ibid.

9. Ir n~ ~ uid beaus<: of rhe sc:riownc:ss with which invc:srors tool< natc:mc:nrs like: ,ha, of
Netsape founder, Jim Clark:"lf th~ invention at the: h~= of my fiTSI stan_up was an imer
n~l combustion cngine, MOl:lic was fire itself" (Jim C13,k, Netlr~pe Time, Thr M~ki"g ojrbe
Bmitlll-DoIUJ. Slurl'Up 7h.l/ T",,1c 4>~ Mirrosoft [Sc. Mattin's Griffin, 1oooJ.118). But in facl the:
Weft och.. wdl browsc:n htfOft Moso". In '991, for exampk.lhe: X\Vindows-b.:I.5ed VioLa ",d1
brv..'Sc:t' I=l scroIlban, Nd: and fnrwo.rd bu<mns in chc: upper-kfr comer, 1 gIobt: icon in thc:

------

40. s,,~ ~n.wikip~di.:l.orglwiki/Vann~vn_Bush.

Also l- Zxh....y. E"dl<ll F"",ri.r.

4'. Moon SchoffJWl. ~rrulillo oom.priv@psi.com. 14Jun.,9'90.

41- Uupsi!njinlrop.poruLcom!lhinman. enWI ro ~.fip.eom. romin,@psi..rom.'9]un< '9904J. 1b< Summary Rq>on dtseriba how Srcphm Wolff of me NSF oudin<d m. (AUP) IhlO had
bttn govnning the NSFNer. H. uplain<d: "Und... th~ dnfr arrqmrbk UK polity in .ffeer from
1988 to mid-I990, uS(. of Ih. NSFNET b.:tckbon~had to supporr ,h. purpose of' acienlific resarch
and other Khola,ly activities: The interim policy promulgaled in Jun~ 1990 is ,he ume. except ,hal
th. purpose of the NSFNET is now' to support usearch and .duc:uion in .:lnd among .:I.Cldcmic
insnru'ions in the US. by:KCCSS 10 unique f'UOurces and ,he opporruni[)' for oolbboracn.. work.~
Wolff oudin<d ,he disrincrion bctwcnl commtrrialiucion;and priv.tri:.arion of cbe NSFNET. The distinction h. m:ode is ,h.ar"rommuci:t!i:.ation- if."pcrmittingrommc<cial users and
providtn CO:KCUIi and usc InternCl f:ocilicies and S(l'Viccll: whik"priv:llIiurion" is"the dimill.:l.,ion

7. Quo<~ ill ibid.

8. QuOfcd in

a
9

--

)8. High-Ptrft>r""'IU:~Compllring Act "j '99": R~port t>f UN Sr...u. Commi".., o~ Co...mnc~. s.~"'"
,,,111 Tn:rMporro';"" 011 S. ,061, 19'90. ERIC, www.ulud.p/ERlCWdlPo.tal/oonr~nrdelNcry/
KrvI<t/ERICSnvIer~accno=ED)19116. and ..,,-,ernm, of ~n:ltor Albm Gore.Jr. Cmgmsiootol
Raord (14 Oct. 1990).
J9. Stt Gr:mdin. \ ....idmalm .:lnd Wormbs, Sri.~(~I"dIlJlryN'''"l.

Notes ro Chapter s

}o.john
Cauid). o..'-fll"' HlI'"
Amwe.. 1.0<1//1
LlIJI llJ Mind
~nd MlIn~J
ill II"
,IN /nrrrner
Imnll~' E,,,(Ha"P'r
E.... (Har~r !>cren
Jo.JohnCanidy,Dol.(o",
HoI<' America
Mind""d
M""'J in
p""nJ Cassidy.
Cauidy. "lbe
"lhe Wom1n
\Voman in (he
TIN N~",
Yorh'.16 Apr. 'r999,
!iI'99. 48.
nial.
l00}). 96. Also ~e
nial, 1OOJ).9'6.
rhe Bubble; 1Jx,
N<w Ycrktr,16
}I.
QUOfed in Wendy
Welldy Zellner
Zdlller and Stephanie
FOre5t,1he
ron, How ExEJr,
JI. Quotrd
Srephanie Anderson Fornt.
lbe Fall of En
En,on,
jdfSkHling'l Smregy
Gtew So Compk,;
Complex Th1r
That Eun
Even Hil
Bou Couldn't Gee
Gel 1a Handl.
Handle On
CEO JdfSkilling's
Str.urgy Grew
Hi. Sou
It; BlIli"'1I
BI<.l;ncss W....l:,
Wrtk. 11
17 Dec.
0.1001.
1001, )0.
'fow,r oj
of &I/od.
a"bd. vol
vol. 1I of A
A HiuM]
Hist""y oj
of BrMJ(M,i"l
U"i'r,1
}1.
Barnouw......
Jl. See
Sec Erik &mouw,
A TOwtr
Bm.ulc"Sllng in tllr
rM Unit""
P~n. 1966),1)1.
1966). 131.
Slnlrl(O"ford UnivcnHy
Univrrlir)' Ptus,
Sr<l.lrs(OrlOrd
n.
'918. thc
the corpor.ue
rorpor.1fe world imaginrd
im~gined r2dio
r~dio u
al a ,001
(001 udusivdy
udulively for $lT::I''i;'"
IIr:lIegk. poinl-lo-point
poinltopoim
lJ. In 1918,
unl Iikc
like ship-t....
,hip.rod,o",
lnd milit:lrycommunic:lrion.
mili,ary eommunicarion, and it
rook thc
rhe mio
r~dio amarror
amateur rnmmuniry
communily
wcs
shorr and
ir rooIc
(the O1'igin.ll,acketi
rhe .-ntirrh
rwenrierh anrury)
centUry) ro discowr
discover the
ofbroadcalting and
(thc
original hxken or
of thc
thc plealurn
pkuurn ofbroadeuring
u,ing
entertainment in thc
rhe 1906-1919 period. \Vb..,
\Vhen T::Idio
r:ldio beam<
became a popular (nle
using ndio for cntnuinmmr
cnu in
'910. the
w;/llaken
off guard. and it
il look
reorientationl, a new
1910.
thc .0rpor:l.le
rorpont. world was
cilin oK
took major
nujo< Smltegk
srnllcgK rrorirn[;;lrionJ,
10 Madison
M.dilOn :rvcnu.,
av.:onue.and
md a new rcgulatory
regul.tory agcncy
agency and legal
Icpl conS"UCII
conSlTUCU to
ro bring rhings
,hings
n::lario,w,ip ro
relatioll$hip
momellt in Ihe
Fordism. Sec
5 Sltttrct.
under conuvl.gain.lt
undn-conerol
again. Ie wl1
was a key moment
thc consolidation
ronsolHhrion of
ofFordis.m.
5rffecu, Sel/illg
Sdling
tM A",
fIN
A". 84-91.
84-9"
}4.
"On dte
Fronlien From th.
fhe Wild East of Runian
)4, Virginia I\mrd.
Pom.I.On
th. Frontiu,
Russian Capitalism 10
to the
rhc E\o'Oh';ng
E\IO"~ng
Form.
r....rnll orCyberspa.e.
ofCybcrspacc, Sehu
Esthrr Dyson likes
Likes Ihe Promis<
Promise of
ofUnserrled
Unscnl.d T.rritory-and
Territory-lnd ,h.
Ihe Chi.
Chal
lenge
ofCivililing It;
[t; &a,on
RMlO" MOIMi"r.
www.re.....n.com/news/lhow/Jooa..hrml.
html.
l.ng< ofCiriIizing
Magazine, Oa. 1996.
1996, www.n:ason.com!ncws!show!JG01
n. Ch,i"oph..
Christopher Anderson.
~lllC
Accidcmal Superhighway
[mernet Su..
Surny);
1~e EcQ1l0"';.1
E'O'IOIOIil'
]S.
And.rson. i
l.. Accidental
Supe,highwar (The Intern.t
~y);"The
(US). .July
I july 11111S.
(US),
'99S, 4.
)6. Ibid.,).
36.
Ibid . J.

CI'
CHAPTHR
... TU.6
6

.
I.

There
prim and dccnonk
dearonic versions
ofRaymond's
kgend.:ol')' es.say
eMay avaibble.
Th.n:: are
an:: many print
yersions of
Ra)mond'slcgcndary
a.... ilabl., which he
b.
6..r
lim I'ruen,cU
pr.....n.cd in May 1991.
'99'. bul (he
Ih. 'nos<
mosr appropriar<
appropriate would be .he
the version
v.:on'Oll on his own web..ile,
website.
the yea..;
yurs: I...
t t Eric Raymond,lb.
Raymond.1he Cathcdn.l
CathWr:l1 and Ih.
fhe Ba::aar:
Bal11r"
complete with
lis, of changes over
compl.
wi.h a list
O\'C' ,h.
Eric
Erk S. R...pntlnds
R~Y"'Q"di HoIII<'
Home P~gr,
P,'ge, 11 May 1997. carb.OI'g!-tlwriringslhomul<adingicarh.dral.
ca<b.org/~esrlwrirings/holllu'uding/Calhed,.l.
bnaar/.
lnLJar!.
1.
COIIII,urer Lib,
Lib. OM 4S.
1- Nelson, eo",p"ter
3.
Nclson. ",-.hypersr.md.com!SoundlTo'CRtporu.hrml.
www.hypctll'a"d,col1l/So~,nd/TecLReporrz.hnnl.
J- Nelson,
4. Nelson.
Nelson, Literary
Liumry Mad",.es:
Mod"'''I: 11H'
'Ibr Report
Rrl'c" 0".
on. and
~nJ oj.
oj, Pro~tt
Projm X..
X~n~JlI
naJ.. ConrwlI'ns:
c.,ncmung Word
Wonl Pro
PrQ'
rmil'g. E1tl'l>n'"
Elm,,,,,ir Ps<bliJbj"f,
P~blilhillg. H,pertUI,
I-fyp..,ut. "Thinlw1ap.
Thinker,oys, TcmOrro",'1
Rtl'Q(u,i,,,,,
"",1
eNSi"g.
T""'.>"',,.. In,d/.rMd
r..tellt"",,/ ~
...t"li,.... "nd
Cm"",
1"p'fS /ndudmg
Il,duJu,g KncldeJgr
EJu,,,,i,,n "nd FrrtJ_
FrerJo,n (Idf
published. '98J).
Urt."n O,h"
Other Topia
K"""-kJgr.. Ed",ali""...,J
(Kif publish.d,
'fil8J), ehap.
chap.
a. }I.
1.
J8.
S.
a,)8,
s lbid
Ibid.,.. chap. 1.
}8.
6. Nelson,
Nelson. TetLReporn.hrmL
TecLReport1.hlml.
7. Lockc's
phr:llf in.hc
in the S.......
Strond
Tremi'r wasno
was "no one oughl
ought to
ro hann anO{h..
another in hillif
his life.
hul,h.
,.
Lodr<'s phrase
J Trtali.!t'
e , h.alrh,
JibellY. or
Locke. Srrond
Tre"lise "jG"""rn""nl,
0fe",,,rn,,,,,,,. cd. Crawford
Crnwford Drough
libcny,
0.- polSeliionl~
possessions" (John Locke,
&t,,1Ul Trt.uise
Brough
Macphmon (Hlcken
[Harkett Publishing,
Publishing. 1980),
Maq>h=n
19Sa], 9).
fil).
8. Al'n ~nd,
8,
Rand. Arias
A,/", Shruggrd
Shrugged {Dunon
(DUffOn Adult,
Adllh. lOOS).I06.
zoos). '06.
9. For.n
overview of 10llle
,ums in eatly
law in Ihe
StatCI.
For an O'.'er";.w
somc of lhc
Ih. odd twim
rwisrs and rums
utly property law;n
rh. United
Uni!<d Stard.
Histo,y oj
of A"",;rall
Amrri,,,,, Law
L"w (Touchslone.
'986). 1)4-44.
1]4-44.
sec
L.wrencc M. Fri.dman,
Friedmall, .....
s<c Lawnce
A Hil/or]
(Touchs.on. 1986).
10.
'0. Su
See Thomas
l1l<llll . . C. Grey,"lb.
Grey. ihe Disinregrarion
Disintegration of
ofProperry;
Properry; Properly:
Prop"'y' NO'lIo,
NQmOI XX 1/69
1169 (1980)'
69-70.
69-10.
II.
I', Srruler,
Streelft. Selling
Stlli"l,hr
rhe Air,
Mr. 119.

206

NOlcs to ChJptcr
Ch~pfer S
Notcs
5

11.
'1.5
Sc. Cuol
Carol M. Rose:.
Ro~, Cryllal.
"Crystals and
alld Mud;n
Mud in Property Law; Stanford
5l41nfo,,1 Utw
taw Re..iew
Jk~i.", 40.
40, no.)
no. J (1987)'
('987):
sn-li'o.
511-6'0.
'3
5 FiJhu;5lor;<s
Fisber,"Stories about
a!>ou, Propcny;
PropellY; Mic"i!.,,,
M"hit"" Utw R",,,w
(19'9'6): '"6-98.
,,,6-98.
IJ. Sc.
R<view(I996):
'4.jcfCmy
Bentham. 1Jx,
TIN 1V0rlu
Br"thum. cd. john Bowring (W
'843). SOL
'4
Jercmy Bentham,
1V0rlts 0fJrrrml
of)m",y &"r""m.d.john
(W. Ta;f.
Tait, 184J),
sor.
IS. Sec leV)'.
Narlu,... 319.
'So
Lcvy. HMItrn,
a19.

u.w

16. Fisher divi<ks

divides rhcse
these ;nro
into four perlpectivu
Ih.t CIIrrntdl'
.urrelltly dominare
Iheorcrical writing aoout
.6.
persprivcs chat
dominate rhcon::riCllwriring
about
inrelleCfualpropercy,
urilitarianism; laoor
theory; personaliry
pe'lollaHty .henry;
,heory: and soci.tI
social planning
inldltctu.tl. pmpert)': urilit:lrWUsm;
labor IhMry;
plmning rheory.
rhcory.
Im.llccfu.1 Prope:r,(
See l:i,her.1heories
S
Fisher, lhcoms of Imdlru.tI
Propcny:
See Grey,lbe
Grey.lhc Disint<JT::Irion
Disintegrafion of Pmpcny:
Pr0l'err(
17. Set
18. Sec Bernard
Bernud Edelman.
Edelm.n. o.ncrsbip
Ownersbip of w
,Il<' 1m":"
r.....gr: &
Elrmerluf"'
....n/$ fora'' MaaUt
Aforxill 7hr"'J
Thnory <1
c>f z..,w,
Low. rnns..
(rans.
Eli~beth Kingdom (Routkdge
(Roudedge '"
6: Kegan "'aliI.
.E!.i;abcrh
Paul, 1979).
'979).

I,.

vi

'9.
Tim. and
"nd ComltloJuy
18,.
r9. Frow.
Fro"', 11""
c.,,,,moJuy Cul/l"".
Cull.."" 187ao. David
Oa...;d s..unrkrs.
Saunde~ AWlbonb,p
A",h<>rship """
und Copy"gh,
eo: Fnnci.,
Fra.ncis. 1992)".
10.
Opyngln (Ta)'lor
(Ta)ior '"
1991), ,.
S Manka
Mallha ,"'oodmansee
['elft Jan.,
jaszi. 1bc'
'Ill<' COnJlr"rt;on
of.....
lIth<>rship (Duke Universi!)'
a
al. Sec
Woodman~and Pc!<r
Cr",un<Cti"n "j
A"lhonbip
UniYffSiI)'
Press. (994).
Prus,I994).
n. 5
Michel Foucaulr,
~\Vhat Is
[s an Aurhorr'"
Amhor!" in Lmgll"ge.
l... nl:lI"~. Clu"u,.MrmQry.
PrM,ire. ed.
11Sec Michd
Foucault."What
O .. nt...Me..."'7. "=I"'e,
cd. Don-

Bouchard. franl.
Sherry Simon (Cornell
Univ.:otl;ty Ptus.
P"'ss, '980),
1980). IIJ-8.
ald F. Bouchard,
rnn. Sh.rry
(Corndl Uni.....iry
IlJ-8.
Z3 See
Jasli. "\'lho
"\Vho Car~
Cues Who Wrole
Shakelpe~rer A..."iea"
A",rriw" V""'''';'y
f.aw Review
Rrview J1
J7 (1981):
(1987)'
a).
Sec Jas:i.
Wrote Shakespeare"
Un""''''l] L"w
617. and Jam..
611,
james D. A. Ba)k"Scarch
Boyle. Search for an Author: Shakespure
Shakespcart and
~nd Ihe.
the Framers;
Fram...; Am..
Allleri,a"
Uni..",itJ
Low R,
Re~i.w
..iel<' J7
J1 (,g87)'
(1981): 62S.
61S.
V"ivc"ily Law
14
j.ne M. Gaines,
Co"tw..1O<1tu..:
C~llu",,: 1J"
'I'll<' I",,,~.
Ill<' V"i.
VlIkr. "nd
o"d,hr
(The University of
14. Sec
s.:., Jant
Glines, Co,lIemd
Image. 1"<
rhe Low
L"w (Th.
NOllh Carolina P"'IS,
North
PrtSS, 1991).
1S.
eumple. see Boyle."Search
Amltor:
lS. For .xample,
Bayle,Sureh for an AUlhor;

i,,,,,

16.
a6. Rosemary
Ros.mary Coombe.
Coombe, 1ht
TIN C"ltul'lIl
Cult.. r,,1 Life of
c>f III/.llm""l
l.utllmual ProI~rliN:
Proptrl;tS, Aurln""),ip,
Au,honhip. AppropriafiQ".
Appr"p,;",io", oM
mid
,Il<' Utw
Uni,,,rsily Press, 1998).
'998).
II"
u.w (Duke Un;,....ity
a7.
See U.S. Pacem
tademark OAi..,lmtllmu"I
Offiff,I",.lIrrru~1ProptrlJ
Prop<rlY ~"d
~",/,1l<'
N,,'ion,,1 r"j"rmawm
Infc,mmiCl'
27, S..
Patcnt and T
Trademlrk
rlH' N"'lon,,1
I"fl'llll'''''t"...., 1Jx,
TIN &port
Rrpor/oj,IN
WlI,kinl: GrollI'
l'roJ~r'J Rigl>ls,
Rigbu. Scpt.
Sepl. 1995.
'995. www.
lnj..."'r"'ture:
"jllH' Wor.l:ing
Group ell
on lmellm""I,
rmtllm""r, Proptrl]

usp.o.glW/
go/ com/doc/ipniil.
uspm.goy!'/!l!comIdoc!ipnii!.
z8.john
Badow. -Ibe Economy ofldul:
Framcwork for Pal.nu
PalenlS and Copyrigh15
a8.
John Perry Barlow.1hc
of Idcu: a Framework
Copyrighrs in (he
Digi<al Age (Everything)'Ou
(Everything you Know ahou.
.boul lntelkcru.tl
Illlcllecn>a1 Property Is
[s Wrong); Wi"'"
Wired 1a ('994):
('994)' 149.
Digital
c~amplc. sa
se< Sttttt....,
St",efer, SdJmg
SclU"g W
,!lr Air,
a9 For eampk,
Air. 176.
116.
"9.
"Plastics: Unger and Ackermm
Ackerman On T
Transforma,io,,;
Ja"r"~1
JO. See
Sec Lawrence Lessig.
Usiig. "Plast:ics:
ransfomwion: Yale
Y,,1e Law j<l"rnaI
93
98 (1g38):
(1988)' 1I1J.
lin
3" A similar
simil.. intdkcru.tllrajtoey
intellectual ,....jcc,ory was adoptl
Baraek Obanu
Obama whm
when he became
JI,
loprcd by Band<
btamc p",siden(
pruidenr
Ihe N"rv<lrd
Rt~iew in 19S9.jIlSl
l.enig was assuming
'liuming his
hillillit
f.cully position
posi,ion a.
a( (he
of ,be
Harvard LAw
Law ReI""",
19&9,jw.r al
u L&sig
611-1 lXulry
thc
Universily of Chicago.
Uni\'ffSiry

m.

u.w

u....

Muning and Social

U",vcrJIty
of p.,m'l""'"io taw lVriew
Rrview ''44
}1.
Lessig. "Social Jt.1eaningmd
)a. Usiig.Soci.tI
Soci.tI Norml;
Nomu; l!>oi........
'IJ "jl'<"IIn'J',,,,n,,,
" (May
1996), 118.
1996):
1181.
}3
J). Lasig,
Lessig.. "Understanding
"Und.rs<anding Changed
Chan~d Readings: Fidtliry
Fidel;'Y and lhtory;
Theory; S/;l"fi"'/
Stanford t .. ,~ &view
Rtview 47
(1994):
('994)' 400,
400.
)4. Sec
34.
See ibid,
ibid.
JS See
"Lawrence l.<ssig'.
Lessig's SUI',t1ne
Showdowl\; Wircd.o
Wirrd 10 (Ocr.
ao01), www.wirl.com/
)s
S leV)',
Lc:Y)', "Law""n
Supreme Showdown;
(Oct, 1001),
www.wiud.rom/
wired/archive/1O.,o/lessi&-l'rJ,tmL
wi..d!archi""!
ro.IO/I...ig...pr.hlml.
Rape: in Cybersp.ce:
~n Evil Clown,
Clown. a Haitian Tridmct
Spiri,. Two
}6.julian
Dihbell, ~A Rap<
J6.Julian Dibbdl,"A
Cybe..pace: How an
Trickster Spiri',
Wi];:OrJs. .nd
and.a east
Do:::ell$ Tumed,
infO a Sndefy;
711t Viii,,:,
Vi/I"gr Voi"
VlIi.. 2),
n 11
z, o"c.
Wi:ard.,
Cast of Do:cn$
Tllrntd 3 Database
Databasc ;nro
Sociely; "]')"
Der.
'993.36-41.
J6-41.
199),

u.w

207

Notes to Chaprer
Norcs
Chaptc.r 6

}7.
37. Levy,
Ltv)'. "I~w~nee
"Law,ence I..ellig.
Lessig$ Slipreme
Sup,eme Showdown:
Showdown."
)8.
38. Ibid.
)9 See Chrisri~n
Ebrn Moglen,
Moglen,"Linll"iltie
lnderrrmin.ey ~nd
I..w: On
}9
Chrisrian Z.pf ~nd
and Eben
"Linguis,ic Indetennin.cy
and rhe Rule of Law:
rhe Perils
Prrili ofMisunderuanding
of Mi~underJl'lldingWingenllein;
...Jourtl"l84
('995): 485.
,he
Wingen>!ein; Gr~'XfI~Wtl
Gco'1"I""" L~
LAw
j""r"illll4 (I99S):
40.
Su D."id
"'mrrira by !klig"
Dl'ligll (OxfOrd
(O"furd Uni"eniry
Pral, 1979).
40 See
David F. Noble.
Noblc.lI.m.riC4l
University Press,
'979).
4'
once 'old Ille
,hu rhe way
.... y to
10 make
nuke monty
money in lhe
,he compur"r
computer bllliness
s.rring
me rhar
businus is by "'ning
4r. "Bill G.'rJ
Galel onee
de
nr propri.l1Iry
(Cril1gdy. "I,
"I. Cringely.
Cringely . 111e
d" h.,o
&ao sr.nd..ds,
srandutU, by
b)' which h.
he m
m"anr
prnpri~ry sr.nll....l.
sr.andanIs." (Cringel)',
Th" Pulpir
T~crics V<:nus
Verlus Srl'lu<:gf
Sr11llegy I1 PBS:
PBS; E,I, Crillgrly
'llllll, www.pb.l.org/cringdy/pulpir/19991
..Tactics
C""gely, a Scpr.
s.:pr.lm,
www.pbs.org/cringdy/pulpir/lml
pulpir_1999090'_0006JJ.hrml.
pulpi,-r99909'O"-ooo6~~.hnnl.
41."'The
001 "'herher
wherher Mr. G.r.s
ro u
...,n n.rrhtr-rhe
fll.lher-rhe evidence
,,,
4:1.
1M quesrion is no,
Gates c.olruin
On srr;rin 10
sa ~n
evitknce 50
f.r suggests
sugguu nor-bor
nor-bur whelher
mlking money in o:hc
Ihe s1ipitrc.am
,lip.lt~.m of olher
~ople',
fu
whaha his dill.l
deillat m.aking
rxha p<:<>pl,,'s
tcchnological
"i,;on will
will,er".
him"as wdl
w.1I in th"
lh. nat
n.n dead<:
du.de as
I I i.
il h:u:
h~. for
the pail
plll two"
H."e.a
,bnoIogial vision
5UW him
for.he
rwo" ("I
("J Ha~
Dr.~m: n.c
TI,. .&0""""11,
Erc"omlll. ~
JS NOV.I99S,
No". 1995, 6S).
65).
DrelIm:
4). H.ubrn,
roseolr, Nt/;mlJ,
Jr.
4}
Haubm. H.uben.
Haubm, ~nd
and T 1'1lSCfXf.
Nniu"s, x.
44. Ibid.,
16S.
4..
lbid .,16<j.
45 Sa:"Linwr;
Sec"Linu,,; WilriptJia
and Glrrl
Glyn Moody, JUlrd
Rrl>c/ Code:
G><le: Lo"u
LitlwJ!
lVib~ia cn.wikipedi.orglwiki/LinUJ<.
en.wikiptdi.>.oogIwik.i/Linwr,and
and the
1M Ope".sc...mOpt" Scllrrr Rn'OllIli""
J001), '90-91. AIIO ue
lInJ
Rrvol...,..... (Blii.
(B:uic Books,
Books.l00l),I90-9I.Also
s Michul'liemll1n,"HillOry
Michxlliemann,"Hislory
of Ihe
d", OSII ~n
Opt:n Source
Soun:e In"il,''''';
Initi.>rivc; www.opcnsource.orgIhist:ory.
www.o~nlOlIn:e.org/hi~lory.
A.rording to
10 TlCmlnn,"'The
imm.dilre eh.in of evenlllhal
46. Aording
TtmWln,!he immedi.>"'chain
cwnts thar WUfO
""35 ro Iud
lad to
ro rhe
o:hc forll'llnon
fonnation of
OSI bcpn
brg.zn wirh the
lhe publicalion
publk.lion of Eric Raymond:'
ell"""",,1 ,,"d
1m 8II=z.
Ba:..... in 1997'
199'Raymond', plpcr
paptr Tht
The u.lhcJrlll
and me
(Ti.m.nn,"Hisrory
of Ihe
Open Souru
Soun:. Inili.ti...,").
(TtmWln,"Huroryof
m., OSII Opm
lniria."...").
41
'ne 'UlililY
funerion" Lin"'"
Lin"" hlCkel'l
a~ m.uirrlmng
mnimiJing il
iJ the
th.
47.!he
u.iliry fUncrioa'
hac:Ursa....
is not
noc e1~lIk.olly
cbssially economic
C'COnomic bul is
intlngibl.
ego sarishccion
l1lilf:Ktion and repulllion
lnlong other
olher had~en.
(One 11\3)'
mly c.all
eJ.1l m.,i.
rheir
inrangibk of Iheir
r},.,i, own "SO
rq>UuOOn. among
had:tr$. (On<:
mOli"",rion
Jirruislk: bur
bl.llihil
fhe f..cr
f.!cr du.r
thu a1rruisrn
llrroilm is
il itsdf
itself a fOrm
form of <:go
Cjlo urWx:rion
l1fisfacrion
mis ignorel
ignoru me
mOOvuion almlistie:
Volum.ry eulrurellhal work
lre noc
not aetuaIly
aclullly uncommon;
unrommon; One
for the
o:hc alrruin).
a1m>isI:). Volunaryculml'fllha.r
"""" Ih;,
rhis way arc
one orher
other
I h.a~
hl". long particrpal<:d
p1rric'p.red is
il sciaK"
seiener 6aion
fiction fandom.
fandom, which unlike
explicilly
unlike: hlckel'<!om
Iw:ka-dom aplicirly
in which 1
rrcogni~n .egoOOo'
el1h,ncemem of 0"""
onr'1 "1'uation
rcpul1lrion lmongorhtr
.mong other f:uu:)
f:1I\1) <lIlhe
b.,k drive
ruognius
t:goboo. (the ...uunammt
as rh" buic
behind "olume.r
voluntr lcti"iry"
acmiry' (Rlymond,-n,e
(R..ymond,1b~C.thedral
Cathw.ra1 and m.,
th. Ba:2ar").
B':11'-).
4S. Se.
Willi.m C.
C. Taylo.,
T'j'lor, "Inlpi~d
Work: Rill
1999): aoo.
100.
+8.
Sa: \VrlIilrn
"'nspim! by Wort;
NSI Comp,wy
G>mparrJ 19 (Oct.
(On. (999):
Se".ralmore
these aphorilm&
refer 10
to inr...-nal
intern.lll.r.I'
I,a~r
lilt right
i",cr'
more of r""",,
aphorisms ....rtr
.rates:"4.1/yOIl
4-lfJO" ""
.... IM
righI dlliru,lr,
~llif..-.k, mltr.
49 Several
~'li"g probIe",s
prablrml wiU
wil/fitld
yo,,: for U;lmpl~,
ex1mple, a"d"tB.
lol~t ""
IIMl by
fi"dl'''l''..
":fiNg
ji"J "",;
:uld "II. '10
T.. sol""
~" ;mrrtll'''g
int=:Sfi"g 1'l\IlIItlll'
problem, SllIn
fry Jim""1
probl.",
lhM IIjs i,uursti"g
III yo,,:'
pn>bk", Ihtot
li"1 t"
J""':
so. The pire.
so
piece dOd
does in various
vuioul w.ys
...ays adrnowlw.g<:
.cknowl.dge and da.bon.re
el.oorate the obvioul
obvious v;rlucs
".Iue, of COOJ'C''''rion
roapcr1lion
.hJ.ring :uld
.Ild Ihus
rI"" hl'
hu 10
lomehow disr:anu
disllnce: iudf
i\'leJffTom
simplistk forms
forml of ronu.n.ic
romlnlk
and sharing
ro 5Omehow
from rhe more simplistic
indi"iduJ.lism.
ide. of crc.:r.tiviry
crelfi"iry i,
ililill...,ry
herok and Promerhean.
Promelh..n. Canlider
lhil
,till ""'Y much heroic:and
Consid.,.. .hi,
individualism. Blilihe
Bur rh~ id"a
pauage:
pa=lge:

'"f.....

.".1

Theonly
The only way
W1Y ro try
rry for ideas
idus like Ih.f
rhar il
is by ha"ing
h.aving lou
1011 of
ofide:u:-or
idul-or by having
hlving Ihe
rhe engineering
enginee.ing
judgtlleJU
fo nke
raIu: olher
orhe. people"
~oplcs'good id~as
ideu beyond
bryond whe...,
whe~ .he
lhe originlfOTlthoughr
originators thoughr rhey could
judgmem 10
And~w T,nenNum
th. original idcJ.
Un'" fur
)&6, for
go.... Andrew
Tan~nhaum had rhe
idea 10
to build a limple
simple nJ.live
nari"" Unix
for Ihe
rhe )86,
UK
Tor""'ldl plilhed
lhe Mini"
And~w probreaching 1001.
fOOl. Linul
Linus To,vald.
pushed ,he
Minix roneepr
concepr fu"her
rurrher lhlll
than Andrew
prob.
u"" as a11eacbing
bly rhoughr
rould go .. alld
,nto somelhing
ir could
and it grew
g""w inro
somerhing wonderful. In Ihe
rhe ume
J.lm~ way (rhollgh
(though
ably
thought il
on a1.m:Ukr
selle), I[ rook some
Hury Hochhciser
Hochheiur a"d
.nd pushed
pu,hed
smaller scale).
10m" idul
idu, by Carl H.rrillnd
Harris and Harry
Ihem
h.l'<!. Neilhrr
u, was 'original'
.original' in rhe romlnric
w;ay p""ple
~ple rhink
lhen,
Neirh~, of us
romantic way
rhinlr. is gcniLu.
genius. alit
Bm rhen,
rhem hard.
moat
Ind engineering
by original g.niu"
genilll, hacker
hackndcv<:lopm~m bn'l
isn'r done by
mosr Kience:
science and
engine.,ing Jnd
and softw.~
software de...,lopmenr
mylhologj'
The r(lu[1I
rhe J.l"'e_in
l1nle-in faCt,
fact.juSllhe
rhe rontrary.
comrory.The
rcsulrs we~
we .... p~l1y
p'erry hudy
h.ady lruff
sruff all
aJllhe
jus< rhc
mythology ro lhe
kind of succell
li'l(l for!
I would
wuuld ha"e
h.w 10.ser
rO,KI my lIamUrdl
IU=" ewry
.vcry huker
hlch r livcs
fod And Ihey
they m"a"r 1
standards even
~ven
Cllhedral and fhe
BlJUr"]
higher. [Raymond, "The Ca,hedral
rh~ Ba%aa'"J

"'.'l\!

208

NOtes
Chapler 6
Notes to Chapt'"

51. See
Borl.nd, "Browur
S~~ en.wikipcdil.orglwiki/Usage_mare_oCw.b_browscl'l.
~n.wikipcdia.orglwiki/U,age_,ha ...._oCweb_browsers. Also
Al,o )oIm
John Borl.nd,'Browse,
Wan: High Price,
BlDgs, IS
Wars:
Priu, Huge
Hug~ Reward&:
Reward.: ZDNrl
ZDNet Nrwl
Nf"'l & BlOIS,
IS Apr. JOO),
1001, newl.Jdnel.eom/1'OO
news.%dner.oomlalOO'
151L.'-IJS1}8.hrml.
35ILaa-r18718.hrml.
51.
"Hilrory of rhe OSI/O~n
OSIIOpcn Source lnililti...,:
5a. See liemJ.nn,
liemann,"Hillory
Iniriari",,"
Comperitive Entupri..,
Enrerprise InSfimre;
[nsriwce; 8 Dec.
11l1l8, www.
WWW.
5).)Jmes
"Latest C,\spin
Dtt..1998,
S).James G.rmso,
Garruso, "Laresr
C:\spin from Ih. Competitiv"
polilrchoo.romlp-OOIJo.bfml.
polir""hbor.com/p-oorao.hrml.
H.
Se. Gr.ham
Ln, ".MS'
BaUmer: Linux Is Cummunism;
Rrgisrrr, It}ulj'
54. Sa:
Graham Lea,
"MS' BaUmu:
Communism; lhr
The Registe.,),
July 1000, www.
lhercgillcr.ro.ukhoool 011 )tl ml_bJilmer_linuX_is_communism/, :and
and Michael
rherq;isrer.ro.ukJl000/07/}l/rru_baIlmu_linua.js_rommunismJ,
Mich:KI Klne]Jol,
K:an~lIos.
"Glles
Den-CNET New,;
NewI; CN.I
Nr"'l, sJan.
s).n. JOOS,
"ewl.,net.eoml
'Gar", Taking a Seat
Sat in Your [).,n-CNET
CNtt Ne"~,
:IOOS, n~WI.cn~r.comJ
Gares-lOking"'Jrat.in.your.den/l00S-'041-355t4IJI.hrml.
Gar",. raking-a -SC:I.t-in-t'Oll rdocnl :1001-1041...J -SS r4'll.hnnl
55 Daniel Lyons,
"Sofrware:
Hit Men;
Me": Forbtl,
JOO), """""forbes..
www.forbrl.
S5
Lyo......Softw:..
~: Linll"',
Linux', Hil
F.>rbn. 14
r4 <X,.
On. 1003,
oomhoo)/lOh41 ,~_dLloI4link.oYI.hrml.
com!aoo}/lo/r4/cuiLloI41inlcsys..hrml.
Re: Competirive
Competiti"e Enterprise
InllilUle Blasrs
mUll OpenSoun:.
Euha Dyson,"FC:
Dyson, "FC: Rc:
Enr.rprise Insritur.
Open-Sown SofIWl~;
Software,; 9
56. Esfher
Dcc. 1998,
I99S, wwv.cpoliu:chb",.com/p-oou8.hlml.
Da:.
WWW.poIilbbor.rom/p-OOlll.hrml.
S7.
See S. Adler,"The
ElI"ca: An AnJij'sis
Inlernel Pubiiationl;
Lin"J! GQlCtU
57. So.
AdIer,1be Swhdor
Sbsbdor EIf<:cr.
Analysis of Three Inr...-nel
Publications; U"U
c;..Ulle
)S{tll99).
)1 (1m).
5S.
Boyle,"1s Suhjeeriviry
SlIbjettiviry Possible
The Post-Modem
PollModern Subj1
58. See
Sa: &yk,"h
Pos.siblc-1lK
Subject in Lrg.zllncory;
lAgal Th<:ory; U""'tfllly
U"'wrsiry lIf
of
c..l<mrJ1I Low
L..... &view
Rrvirw6.
4&9.
ColonuI<>
61 (1991): +8959. Stt
See Boyk,"A
In!ellCC11.1al Property:
Propcrry: En"ironmenl1liJm
for the
Ihe Nelr'
O..kt Low
t...w
59Boyk."A Polirics
Policies of
oflnreJkcrwJ
Environrnocntalism forNa;" v..lor
jo" ...,,147,
no. I1(0"997):
(<XI. (997)' 8,-u6.
J"'''''w
47, no.
S7~1l6.
60. ~
Lessig. CoJt
",oJ Orhcr
Othtr Lall~
o/Cybtr'lP"ft (Buit Books.
Books, Im).1-S.
(:..Jt """
LAII!S ojC,wnpe(B:u:ic
1999), 7-'.
6,.
Infom11fion Soc:i.ry:
Feud:llr' Tht
C">k ~J""f
Rrpert ....
lilt lhe
1'Il.rllel (5q>r.
(Sepr.
6r. Lrssig."An
Lessig."An Infonnation
Socirty: me
Fret or Ftudl.l;"
n.c C.,.,,\
lhr frtU'ntd
.003),IOJ-4.
:IOO}):
rOa~4.
61.
rondua.d online on
On 10 M...
100S.
6:1. Se1n:h
Sc:ut::b conduettd
Ma. 1008.
Mud/cr,"[nfoCommuniliml
Ownership and Frtt<lom
Freedom in rhe
Digir:.li Economy,
Economy:
6). See
Sa: Milron
Millon Mudltr,
'Info-CommunUim! Owll"flhip:and
o:hc Digital
6}.
Fim
Firn A,'..
MO"'MY
,wJ '37
I), Apr. l008.lirsnnonday.otg/h.bin/cgiwraplbinlojs/inda.php/finJanidclvi"",l00S, ~mmonday.org/hrbinlcgiwt'1l'/bin/ojllindu.phl'/fm/mide/view.
Anidc/lOSll/19S6.
A"icleho5S!r956.
64. Sa:"Copyrighrs:
Su"Copyrighr.: A
A Radical
Radinl Relhink;
TIlt E,,,,,,,,,,isI,
Erono,,,ilt, J))ln.
www.eronomill.eom/
Rahink; 1&c
13pn. JOO),
100], ...-.onomill.comI
64
opinionldisplaySrory.cfm
Isrory_id"'IS47H).
opinion/dispL.)Sroq-.cfm!,rory
_id", 154711365.
ro Ud:mu.com:
Udan.x.oom' En6bdic
En~I.dic Hypencxl;
www.ud.n:ur,cllm/.
65 Nelson,
Ndson, ""Velcome
.....'~ko"'" 10
Hypoerwxr: www.udanu.coml.
66. KoMn
Kevin W~h.
Werbach, Ope"
Sptrlrllm, 71,.
N.w \V'n'1aJ
IVirrlm P~n>Jig,",
I'~radig'!l, worit.ing
working pap"
p~per, Spectrum
Speclrum sm..s
Series
Open Spec""",:
The Ntw
(New
(N~w America Foundarion,
Foundation, 100'),
looa), werbleh,coll\/dOCl/n.w_wirelel'_I'.r~digm.hlm.
",..,duch.com/doa/n...._wi ..lcss_paradigm.hrm..
61.
Sec Miru..
Micah L.
Sifry, ~fhe Rise
Polilin: "llunlcs
'!hanks 10
to Wm-S:",")'
WebS~vvy Agiarors,
Agilatorl,
67. So.
l.. SifTy,lhc
Ri... ofO~n-Soun:e
ofOpcn.Soun:. Polilic,,:
Insiderism and Elitism
Elin.m A.e lind
under Huvy
AllOck: The
7111' Narr..n,
Nmion, 11 Nov. 1004.
He.av',. Arrack;
Insiderism:uld
6S. Su
Sec 'Open
"Open Soun:"
Source Joum:rlism;
}our11.1Ii,l11: \Vik,~;",
WikiJltdia. en.wikipedi.org/wiki/Opcn_.l<>un:.,Juulnllism.
en.wikiptdia.orywiki/Opcn_lOun:e-Joumalum.
61.
69. See
"Gilberro Gil Hun
rh. FUlure,
Righu Rcsawd.;
Reserved; The
Tht N.w
Nrlt' Y"rk
}ark
s.:~ Larry
L:rrry Rohr.r,
RohIe', 'Gilbcrro
He.ars the
Furu.., Some Rights
Tim... 11
,",-ww.nyrimcs.rom/JOO?/o)!r t/lrlS/musk/llrohl.htmll_ral and
lnd"aruili.n
Ti",t>,
II Mu.
Mar. 1001,
1007, www.nyrime'.comhOO7/03/Il/arrs/mu,i,/nrolu.hrmlCr;r
"Br=ilia.n
Government
t4 Mar.
Mlr. a007,
1007, www.nyrim<:s.
www.nytimel.
G"""",m"nr !nvc.srs
Inv"".. in ClIlmre
Culm.... of Hip-Hop."
Hip_Hop; Tht
The Nt..,
Ntw York
Y..rk Timel, 14
coml00071
oJ/'4/arr,/musit/14gil.hrml.
coml100'] IOl/141
arr,1musicl r4gil.hrntl.
10. Sec
r1 Pobnyi,
Polanyi, Tht
Tr~rufllrllMillll
(lleJ.ron Press:,
PrelS,200I).
The GrrUl
Grc~l T....
nsf..r"'t1li"" (lklcon
1001),
70.
See K..
Karl
11. Sec Rose. "Properry
'Property as rhe Keysrone
Keyslon~ Right:
Righr; NlI/rr
NoIre D.tmr
Dom. w,,'
Lolw Review
Rt~>tw 11
71 (1995):
(r995): )19-65.
ll9-6S.
7r.

CONCLUSIOs
CONCLt1S'ON
I.
Hu Begun;
Begun:
I, Wolf,"'The
Wolf,lh" ($erond
(Second Ph....,
Phase of the)
rh.) ReVO[lIrion
Re,"Olurion Has
1.
journ.lUul1Id
,",'ho wTOle
ron\amk nlrlOri...".
a. Among rhe journalists
and pllndin
pund.in who
wrore dig,lallechno[ogy
digiral rcchnology into romantic
narratives,
Wolf, along wirh
with H.ark...
urhor SI"'el1
nlule scnK
SrC"en Levy, lIand
stand lp;l"
ap~'1 in Iheir
their ofren
oflen llrul~
Sense of Ihe
rhe
Harke ... amhor

209

NOfes
ro the
Condusion
NOI.,. 10
dIe Conclusion

ironies and tensions in the live.

livel and cvents
e''Cnu they chronicled. As lhey .pun
'pun lheir
lhdr romanlic
Irorie.
ironin
romantic storics
lh., liku
likn llf
of Andr~SJen
Andr<:eSKn and
ami \Vo~niak,
\Vozniak, they
rh.,y were
wer<: able
abl., 10
nOfe many of lhe
the I.,nlionlluraround lhe
to nOle
tensions Surrhe cha"".l."
characterlthey
celebrated.parricularly
aroulld the
lhe principles
principlel of fOT'profi'
for'pro~t corpo....
corporale
rounding lhe
th.y c.kb....l.d.
parricularly around
SlruCrur<: and ,he
dte pleasure
plca.u.e in creadng
lhing, for ,heir
lh.,ir own nke.Just
uk.,.Ju.r as
u \Volf
Wolf n<)led
lhe ambigUity
ambiguilY
SlrUCfUT.
creating thing.
nOI.d ,he
!Krw.,en Andree.ucns
Andreus.,n'l dngon.s1aying
dragon-Ilai'ing .t::lnce
'lance IOw:lro..
towardl Microsoft
MicrolOft and hil
cornpany'lpropri.,t:lry
berw~n
his cllmpany.
proprietary
pucrices, Levy".
Levy'l H~<kerl
H",kcN al
at momenu
mOmem, caught
caughl ,It.,
rhe lensions
len, ions bctwun
!Ktw.,en the
rhe market's
market'l preroga,iv
prerogari""1 and
pt::lcricu.
rhe hack",
hack.,r ethic
elhic of open:Kcess
open aa.,,, and free 'nforma'ion;
information! itir wa.
w~1 u,vy
L.,vy who called Ih.
rhe worlds
world'i att.nrion
atrention
the
10 the
lhe )ooung
roung Bill Ga'eis
G~tci. 'pu
'pat Wilh
the Hom.brew
Homebrew Computrr
Computer aub
Club over"
Over code sharing,
.haring, and h.
he
to
wilh Ih.
"rhelan
the Inl.
lrue h.:u:kers"
hackers" (Levy,
(I."vy. H"'/crn,
Hntkm, 41J),
41)), which ",m.d
rurned <JUlIO
our ro
Richa1 Stallm:l.n
S'al]man "the
labeled Richard
Ian of Ihe
!K presc:i.nc
prelciem in l.l'lIU
rerms of anti.ip;aring
anti(ip~ringthe rise of the
rhe Of"'n
open source
,0Ul'Ce mO\"CmtTI1
movcmCnl nearly
nearlr a decade befo....
!Kfore
be
mOSt Olhen
others did. \Volf
Wolf and Levy.,
Levy'l acrounlS
~counr. of ,h.
lhe co"'purer
euhur<: will.rill
will srill be worth
worrh reading
mo&f
oornpmtr culture
reuling
after m.lny
many of ,he
rhe romantiu!ly
inA.,cted nonon.
notionl thty
rhey hdped
helped ~
energize ha'..,
hn'C com.
COmCIO
lcem
long aft.r
romantic;aJly infkcted
10 Kern
peculiar orquaino.
or quaim.
).
necessary componen, ofQb.:oma'uuc.:a.slUl
ofOhams'llucce"ful aOO1-aoo8
1007-1008 ampaign,
ump~ign,art.ainly
certainly in the
rhe prim:l.~
primaries,
J, A nessarycompon.n,
was
fund raising through
Ihrough small
Imall donon coupled to the
rhe ocganiz:ation
org;aniurion of a coIIec'wn
collection
wlS unprecedented
unpnd.nted lUnd
.,n.,rgized gnumooa
grauroo's effOrts,
effons, blxh
boIh of which nor
nO! only med
used the
rhe intrmr1
inr.,rnrt bul
but wen
were stral.strare
of highly eneogi:ed
from How:m:l
Howard Ikan'l"rn,eme,
campaign" for the presidency in
gies learned
leamed and impl'CM'd
improved upon !Tum
gKs
"inumet (2I11.paign
aoo). For a nonltchnological
nomhnological delminist
detern,in;,r analysis
analylil of this.
Ihil, see
I M",,~
I\lo~It"..,b,Shoe
SlID<' Leold",r,
oIn,1 Hllpe:
/-/l>pc:
aooJ,
/.nubn-. ..nJ

Dc:a".,

u=m fro'" 1M
the Nll....
Hl>~"rd
Ik"n Go"'1""I"
c.mpol'Z" jllr
fl>r lhe
rlx F"rrlrt
Purun IIj
l>f InW">ld
tllterltet PoIiliQ,
Pol'ti('l, Sutt,:and
SIm:ter and Zephyr
Zeph)'T
l..m<Hufro'"
n1DNII
Tuchout (Paradigm PubfuhefJ.aOO1),
Publishen, z0(7).
Teachout
4. Aim
Alan Liu, lhe
the ""..,
l...<l"'J ojCw>l:.
l>f(;o(,l, Knllllitdgr
Ml>"'/r,lgr W",*....J
Wl>rk oInd Ihc
/be- C..urlrt
Culru .... ojlllJot"-u>"
l>f l"jQr",,,ul>1l (University
(Univenity of
4,
Prus, aOO4).
1004), 7676.
Chicago Preu.
Jame. Cuqur<:y once
Once deKnbed
described mu
thil :u"
al"nO$ulgia
Ihe lUm~"
fUUlre; which
.... hich uil an ew>arift
erocari"" way of
s. Jamel
So
nosnJgi.1. for the
d<:Kribing the p;att.m,
pmern, bul
bill it somewha'
somewhar bcp
queltion of ,he
imemaillruclurel
des.mbing
~ the question
the inlernal
im>CtUN:S of digital
rom:lntici.m. oS
S Carey,
Cuey,-n1e
Hillory of the Fumre;
Furur<:; in c"",,,,,,"il,,li,,"
Q,,,,munir~tl'c,r dS
<II Cu!l..
Culru rr.
...., 'SL
'Sl.
romanticism.
\he Hurory
'rbe argumtnr
argument ;1
is nor
nOt ma,
that evcr}"orl~
everyone who h:u
hal involtaI.
inroked internet
inrtrnet romanticism
rom~nticilmis
il a compu'tr
computer
6. Th~
11,e conwect;on
connection bctwn
betwcen lhe compulsive qu:ility
quality of computet"
compUler communicarion
communication :and
and
"addict: Th.
romanticism Ihould
should be
he undtfllood
u"derJlood 0"
level of =epriviry.
receprivity. As
A. inlaacm"C
inter.cri,'C compul.n
compurc"lprcad
romanti.ism
on ,he kvd
Iprvd
,hrough the
culture al
3r l.l.rge.
13rge, the uprrience
upcrience of oompoilin..,
cornpulti,'e interaction beam.
became wldesptead
widelprud enough
through
me cultu~
tlllt
,he uticuLllion
uticularion of lhose uperience:a
experiencel and ..:"iow
VJriOll~ kind.
kinds of rt>maIlOC
rOI1lJntic sensibili'ies
Itlllibilirie. became
that the
widely
accessible.
widtly aessibl.,
Emerson, "Self-Relianc.;
"Selr-RoIian,,; 160-6r.
7. Emcnon,
160-61.
8.
I" U.S. Co"stinnional
Constitutional law, for uamplt,
cum pie, tht
the Supreme Cour[
hal take" it a.axiomaric
,har ,he
8.. In
Court ha..tmn
IS uiomatic rtul
u a medium for wide-open fl'tt
ftee speech.
SeeJol", Paul SI.,'(:nl,
SIC"en"
intemet is uniquely wcll.uiled
suile<! as
spee<:h. oSJoon
rhe Court;
Courr: in Rt""~.
Rr"l> v. A(/II,51'
Itdu, sar U.s.
U.S. A44
844 (U.S. Supreme Court 1997).
r997).
"Opinion of tht
9. Sec
Barbaro and
3nd Leslie Walk,
Walker, "OmCorns
"Oaf-Com. Get
Gel Ebck
B:lCk in IPO
[PO Game;
G3me; Wasb",glllll
\v'11hi",VIO" PtHI.
Pillr,
!iI.
Se~ Michael Batbaro

w.n

,8 Aug. 1004.
a004.
IA
idea that the history
hisrory of,h.
of Ihe inlernt'-Iha,
internet-lhal is.
il. rhe way we have
ha"" lold
10. Thi.
'0,
This idealhar
told SIOries
slori.. aboul how
hu appeared-has become .mbedde<!
embedded in
ill Ihe
lhe ma,erialily
rhe imernel
inremcr itself,
!K3r1lOme
it has
malerialiry o( ,he
itself. bears
som.
resonanC.,
about rht
,he inlepar:>biliey
n,edia hiJlOr)'
From th.
the media
resonanCe with
wilh Gilelman'.
Giltlm~n's argumcms
argum.nls aboul
inseparability of media
history (rom
m~dia
themselves. S.e
5.., Girclman,
AI""]1 AI....
~dJ Nrl<!.
N'III.
thtmsd..es.
Gilclm~n, Al......ys
AI.rady
". See
Scc: W.bsl.r
WeWler and
Robbins, Io!fer-muierl
Infor_tic>n Ttrhlto!llgy.
Ttcblf/>I"f].
n.
~nd Robbinl,
11. Yochai
Benldcr,Freedom
Commonl-lll( Emergence ofPcer-Producrion
ofPcer-Produclion as an
la,
Yoch~i !lenkl.r,
Fr~dom in lhe Commons-The
Alternati"" ro
to Markets
Hier.ln:hies, and th.
rhe Ba,de
Ibn Ie over ,he
th., In.timrion~l
In.rinnional ECOll"'lem
Altern~tive
Markers and J-li...rchies.
BCOly.tem in
Which
They Compele;
presented ~I
at Ihe
the Sympolium
Cybcn:apir::llilm, School of Social
\Vhi.h Th.y
Compele; paper pre.ented
Symposium on Cybercapilalism,
Scicnce.lnSl:itule
&udy, Princtton,
Princeron, N.J"
NJ .. a9-:l0
19-)0 Mar. aool).
lOOt).
Sci~n<e. InSlilur. for Advanced
Adv~nced Sltldy.
t). For
Forenmpk,
sec "Free Ihe
iPhone' Suppon
WirelCli Fre.dom!"
Frccdomrhtrp,llwww.fm:rheiphone.org!.
I}.
example. s.e
the iPhone:
Support Wirdts'
http://www.frecthciphon. org/.

or

210

Nores to
ro Ih.
rhe Conclusion
NOtes

Nelson, Computer Lib.

ab, 1.,.
'4. Nelson.
See Terry Gross,Computer
Progr:lmmer Linus Torvalds:
Torv~ld. ,NPR.,
interv;ew, Fresh
Frelih Air (rom
from
IS. S
Gross."Computer Ptogtammer
NPR; intervi.w.
w,
\VHYY, 44 June
Jun., 1001, www.npr.org/templ~te./slory/ttory.phpIS1oryld=111:1917.ln
www.npr.orgltemplates/srorylslory.phplltoryld.,ral917.[11 Ihis
lhil in,e",ie
inrerview,
\VHYY.
Torv.lds ..,id:For
said, "For a while Ir wu
abour mon~y,
money, and I did not
no,likt
fceling... I'm
TorvaldJ
was concerned aboul
like that
th~t fling....
convinced ,hat
rhat one of the .....sons
reasons II never had to
to"'re
money is
illhar
Fiuland
convince<!
care about mon.y
Ihat I come from Finbnd

'S.

,h.,y have a very strong social n~rw<>rk.

network. For example. University
Uuiversity WIS
was buic:olly
buiully !Tee,
frcc, h.al,h
hcahh
and rhey
basi",lly fTee.
free. so I Come
COme !Tum
frOln a cullure
cuhure wh.r.
where rou
don't ha''''
ha"e '0
to worry
wQrry aboul
aooUllhc
care was basically
you kind of don'l
,he
basics oflife.
lire. And I think
[hink thals
that's on.
one of ,h~
,he re:lSOns
rea'onS why
whr 1I was abl.
able 10
ro ignor.,
igllore, psychologi..Uy.
psychQlogic.lly, Ih.
the
buies

or

commercial ISpect.
aspectS of
oflinux.
I'd grown up in a euhure
culture where eomm.rcialllpccu
commcrdal aspecn m:l.ybe
maybe aren',
nen', as
al
eommetcial
linuz. I"d
important
as
,hey seem to
to be in Ih.
the U.S:
importam thty
Diaper Fal1:acy
Fallacy Strikes Again; RL...irrd.)
R....;rt<l,) Dec '997.....
1997, www.paulinabor,6. Paulina Borsook,ille
Borsook.1be Di:l.per
ww.p;aulinaool.
IOOk.com/DacoldiaperJall:Ky.pdf.
sook.com!Doco/di:ropetJ:olIxy.pdf.
eumple, see
s.... 8.arya
Barr" W~inhaum
Weinbaum and Amy Bridges.
B,idges, \he
ille Oth,...
Other Sidt
Sid., of Ih.
.he Paycheck:
P~ych....k:
'7. For enmpk,
I].
Capim:lnd
StruCtur<: of
ofConsunlption:
Mo"rhl] Rev"... ~A.
18, no.
1'10. J3 (1976):
(1976)' 8A-l0J.
88-10).
Monopoly c..pinl
and the StnJ<ture
Consumption; Mllllthly

or

More =endy.
recently, see
sec Nancy FoEhn,
Folbrc, Who
IVhc> P".."
PoIJl for
fl>r Ihc
lbe- KiJ~
K"ll! (Rou,kdge.
(Routledge, 1994).
r..1ore
18. See
S .... BenId,
Bcnkkr, The
1hc Wj,..
W(.wh
l>JN(Il<'Orks:
HCIII Soci.J
Soci,,1 ProJ""rico"
Prod"rri,," T....
T",nlfl>r""
j,IMltm and
~ml FTftdom
FlUd"",
IA.
It& oj
Nrrll'orirJ: HllW
uplltS AfarlrtlJ
(Yale l/niwrsity
Uni\'Cl'Sity Press,
Pr<;ss, UXI7).
>001).
(Yak
1i::iana TannO\':I,"Free
Terr:lllo''a,"Fm: I.abot:
L:.bor: Prodl1cingCulru~
Producing Culture for doe
lhe Global
Glohal Econom)';
Sol'u.l Tal
Texl
'9. S
See TI%ian:o
Economt~ Social
18,
n-S7,and
Andrew Ro.s.
Ross, Ni
Nirr \\'l>rk
If Ye"
)'l>" e""
c.n GN
Ir (New
(N.,w York
York Unn-enity
Univcnity
IS. no. 11 (aooo): H-S7,
and Andrtw
~~''''* tj
~ It
PreM,2009).
Pres.s.
aOO9).
if)'{)II
will. '0
10 Allhu",""'s
AI,huliers claim rtu,
rhar ideology uillhe
imaginary
10. This provides
provid.,. some 'lllw::lnce.
ao.
wbsance, if
you will
the im.agirury
relationship of iodi>idu:ols
individuals 10
'0 ,heir real conditions
conditionl of r.>:Uuna:
exi.tence (",m~
(where i.....,m...,
imag;"M] uil undetSrood
undenlood '0
ro
rdationship
mediarcd by symbols.
symbols, nor
1'101 false).
mean media,ed
21. See
Scc: Edward RoIhsrein."Considrring
Rotbllein, Considering the Lue
uSt Romant~
Romanrie, Ayn Rand.
Rand, a'
a, 100; 1hc
Ycrir
u,
The N<III
NtW Y"'*
Ti"'<J, 1 Feb. aaos,
100S, """,,.n,"t1mes..com!l00s!oa!cnlbookt!01rand.hlmI.
www.nrtimes-comlaoos/ol/oa/bookl/Olrand.htmI.ForlUndlromantic
Ti.....n.
Fo.- Rand's romantic
taltCS
lCC lUnd.
R:rnd. The
'The JUn".,nl'<
ROII"",r;, M""ijrilll
M~"if(ltl> (Sign."
(Signe" 1911).
197r).
t:uces in art, see
:> oS
See Hall"On
Hall. "On Poumodernism
Aniculation:
aL
Posunodemism and Articularion;
aJ. See Hughes.
Hughes, R=tt'llf
R(l<uing l'n>mtrht"l,
Promrllxul, ".
11.107
1).
107
a4. For tnmp!e,
eumple, l1.<.<ig
McChuney argue,
argue."nct
neurrality means
mcan. simply lhar
all like Imemet
I",erner
:1.4,
Less'g and McChesney
-n.t n.urnlity
that alllilc
rrcared alike and mO\'"
mOve al
lame speed O\'Cr
over the:
the nerwodc.
,,<rwork. The
'I'lle owners of the
rhe
content musl
muSt be neared
rontenl
at ,he
,he: Arne
I"terner's wires cannot d.iscriminare.
discriminate. Thu
11,is uis ,he
rhe simple
simpie bul
bur briIIianl"nd-to-.nd'
brilliant'endto-cud' design
delign o( the
Inrernet's
Internet that has mad.:
made ilit such a p""..,rful
powerful fol'tt
furce foreconomic
for economic and social
s<Xi,1 good:
good, AU
All of ,he:
rhe intelIntet"rlet
ligence and conrrol
userl, nollh.
nOt Ihe ntn'loorks
nerworkl that
rhat connect
,hem" (Lessig
(l.euig
ligenu
romrol is held by producers and users.
ronnl them"
and Robe..
Robert \\1:
W. McChesney:No
McChesney, "No Tolls On ,he
Inlernet; W""&'''ltllll
WoIlhi"groll Pillr,
II June aoo6).
.006).
Ih~ Int.rn.l;
Pllll, 8June
:>S.
Panz.ris nOI..
notes what
wha, he calls
call. th."rhetorical
the "rhetorical naturalizanon"
natur:\lizarion" of Ihe
rhe inrernct
,ince ,he
mid-r9901,
as. Panzaris
inl.rn.1 since
the mid-t99Q1,
wbere the
rhe intern.r
internct is claimed
to!K
th., .....
way
ncccs.oity, and ,hen
lhen nonnati,..,
normative c!ainu
claim. a~
ne mad.
made
wh~re
daimed to
be lhe:
ay iti, is by necessity,

or

basis. See
5 .... Panu';s,"Ma.hines
Panzatis."Machincs and Roman'..;
Romances; l-S
I-S.
on .hat
thaI b:uu.
.6.
to Joltn Gilmore in Philip ElmerDewill.
ElmerDewitt, David S.Jac!uon,
S.Jackson, and Wcndy
\\'endy King,.
King.
a6. Arrribllled
Attributed 10John
"FirJI Narion in Cyb.rspau.:
Cyberspace; 11",
Time, 6 D.c..
Dec. 1!l'9).
http,llwww.rime-comlrime/magaxinclarli"First
19!i1), http://www.
illle.com/lim./maga~inc/arti.
c1e/o.9171.979768,00.hlml.
<lei0.9'71,979768,oo.html.
17. 'lhis
This is
is:on
to di'lingui.h
'7,
an echo
e<ho of Sherry Turkks
Turkle's phrase,
phtase, with addition of Slll'I<'U,
IllCially 10
distinguish from her
more psychologically
p'ydlOlogicallr orienled
orienred sense
of"cvoca,ivc obje<u:
Turkle, Ev"'''li,..,
E''IlIll'' Ohi,m:
Obje(lJ: Thi"lS
l/';IIfl
.~nse of"."ocarj,..,
objecls: See T"rlcl~,
W. Think W,rh
lVirh (MIT Prns.
IV,
Press, 10(7).

Nores 10
ro Ihe
rhe Conclusion
NOlcs

Index

Abbate,J~net,
AbWtc, J:rnet. 94
1I0-111, 104n4}
Acceptable
Acuptable Use
~ Policy;
Po!iq'.1I0-111,
1.04043
Ackerman,
Ackcnnan. Bruce.
Bruce. '49
149
Addiction,
Addiction. computer.
rompu[er, &r
S Compllter
Campurcr holding
holding
power
".....
Adorno. Throdor,
Thcodor. ]8
,8
Aitken.
Aithn. ~ejdrrey,
GcorgcJdIfry. '9.n,}
'9'0'3
Allen. Rob.
IlJ. 1>8
Robnt E...
!LIE}.
ull
AldlUsJer,
A1mlUKt", Louis.1Iln,0
Louis lE020
Amish.
Amish. S9.198nS1
59. 19l!052
Anderson, ChriSlopher.
Andcnon.
Chrisrophn, T}6
136

AndrttSMn.
Mark, 11,
1>6. TJO-'J2.
'57, '68.
Andrrcsscn.lo.'btk.
2'. 126.
130~13>, 151.168.

m
Anticipacory
pleasure, 1>],
'17,')5
AnticiForr p1easutt,
I}S
AOt,
AOL.15J,. 1T79
19

,s].

Apple Computer
Computer Inc..
Inc.. 64,
80. 89, 157.IS9;
Apple
64. 69.
69.110.119.
15'.159:
and 1984 TV ad,s,
81.10m19;
ad, S,1I1.
>011129: Apple II,
:rnd
6S-66, 8J,
199n61
6s--66.
8). 9},
93- 199n60.
'99060.199061
ARPA, '9->1.
'9-21, 1},
'5, 49, 101, 10)
10J
ARPA.
>3. >5.
ARPANET, 11.15,
86, 95-97, 99,
100,
ARPANFr.
>I, >5. 49,
49- 86,9S-91.
99. 100.
10}-106, liS
103-106,115
Articulation, 7, 88, 11',
'7', 1111
181
Arrirul,rion.1.
Artificial imdligence, )1-.
}t-}l. SO, 59
Artilici>lintdligcnu.
Artist-rebel. S
&r Romanticism.
Romanticism, nbtl_hero
rebel-hero
Arns[-rebel.
146. &. ,,150
~Iso Rom:rnricum,
Rom,nricism,
AUlhor-function, 146.S
Author-funcrion.
promethe:m !irenry
litel":l.ry geniu.
genius
promed>an
Bal":l.n, Paul.
Paul. ai,
aI, >3
1}
Baran,
Bardini, Thierry.
lhierry, J7,
37, 40.
40, '94n5>
'94nS1
Bardini.
98. uo-u'.
uo-m, '>5,
11S. 111.
1>7.
Barlow.john Perry, 98.
Barlow,John
'47-149, '6',
'6., '7'
'71
'41-149,
Batm procu.iog.
processing. >8
18
B,uch
BarC$On. Gregory.
Grego')~ 53,
53. S8
58
Baltlon.
Baudrilbrd,j",n,7 6
Baudrillard,Jean.76
~a,&ic,u6
Beena,
Eric. 126
BeU. Daniel.
Daniel. 75
Bdl,
Benig,james, ,OOnl9
aOOnT9
Beniger.James,
Benjamin, Wal,er,).
\Valter.}.
Benjamin.

"3
"3

Benkl..,
8enkler, Yochai,
Yochai, 176
,,6
Bentham,jeremy,
Ben[harn.Je....m)'. 141-14),
14'-143, IH,
'44, IH,
'54, 19snS9
'95n59
Bilnet,
[10
Bilnet. UO
Blake.
William, 61-6)
Blake. William,
61-6)
Bark.
&.it, Robert.
Robnt. 74
14
Bonoolt, P~ub,
Bonoolt,
Paub 178-179
,I1-179
Bourdieu,
8ourdKu, Pierre,
PirTTc. 68
Boyle.James.
'46. TS6.
16)-164, '75
8o)kJan-.I46.
156.163-164.
175
Bradner,
B~. Scotl,
Scon. U9.
U9. 104n51,
1.04n5>. 105nl7
>osnl7
Brand.
Bnnd. Stewart."
Smo'1l'1.I. 4.
4. 41.
4'. H-4S.
44-4S, 46.
46. 51-H,
Sl-S4. 56,
56,

sa.

S8. 79,
17'
79. 90-9'.
\10-9', 171
Brandeis,
Bnndei. Louil.100nn
Louis., >oonll
Bush,
,08
Bush. Ge~
~ H.W.,
H.W" 108
Bush, Vanne"ar:
and me,
,he
Bwh.
V>nl1omlr: biograp/ly.
biogn:pby. '4,
'4, '09;
10\1; and
memrx. }6-n
'94nSl: modd
model of .edlnalrehnomana.
)6-)7.194052;
logical innovarion,
74, 9s.
95. 101,
.09.
IogiaJ
inncwation, 14-17.
>4->'. 14.
10}. 10\1.
114,
ISS. 11S,
'75, 19Jnl1
114. "7.
"1. ISS,
'93IU'
Businel.l-go~rnmem cooperation,
Bwineu'gow:mmcn[
c:oopcno[ion. 15:
'5: ambivaambiva.
118. s..u..
Srt ,,1.0 Carpoolce
Corporale
lence abouc.
aboul, 114,
knu
lI4, 12&.
liNr.li.",
libmllum
Byron. Lord.
Lord, 4S,
45, S9
59
Byron.

Ilyronk, 44,
161, "9
179
Byronic.
44, 161,
By'.'
64,
8)
BJIt. 64. 8)
C'ge,John,S6
Cage.
jonn, 56
C1illiau, Robert.
Raben, 94
94
CaiUiau,
196116
C1mpbcll, Colin.
Colin, 46.
46, 121.
1'7, 'g6n6
Camphcll.
CareY,Jame. W..
W" 48,
48, ,6,
76, "005
lions
Ca....y,Jame.
Cartel ian, ~r
&r O'.....
DescarteS,
Rrnl
Cartellan.
"e Ren':
CauidY,John,106n)0
Cauidy,John,
,06n)0
Castell., Manuel.
Manuel,l00nl9
Casrells.
1oon19
lhe Calhednl
unhedr.1 and
and Ihe
the Ba>:aar"
Bazaa? (Raymond).
(Raymond),
-n,e
1S7-llia
157-160
Caro lnifilllle,
Instilute, 74
74
Ca,O
Cerf, V'"cenr.lo4,
Vincem.104. 129
119
Cerf;
Ceruui, Paul,
Paul. 94
94
Ceru22i,
Cbrk.Jim, 99.1)0-131.
99, 1)0-1)', ,05n9
losn9
Clark,Jim,
Clinton,
Bill.
IlJ.
'18.
')1.
1)S, '46
'46
Clinton. Bill. 11). u8, 'l', 13S.

De 5011 Poo!, lrhiel, 78-79, 9'. 1)6

Dibbell,Julian.I')O
Did.ror, [)enia, )5-36; Emydcp<'die. 35
Discunive p",crices. )
[)is.e~tm<"rll. 44-45. 59.111. 114.154, 170.

F........ John, 10. '4;

111605. Set "Iso \\'eber, Mu

DougLu. Mary. 1, 18gnl

GaifiC$, Jane. '46

CompuServ B6. 9... 119. In

Computer holding power. 17-18, )1, 171;
assigning ""ming to, ]1, H. 4). ;1. 110n6.
Set..Iso Self-mCKM[ing aItibnrion

O"'puUr Lib/Dml", Mlllh,na (N.lson).

56-59. 61-63.~. 63. 1)\1
Compu[er Prof.wonili fCK Social

Responsi.

bility (CPSR). 116

Compu[er Sysltml Policy Project. 101
Computing, commJnd, Jnd oonunl. 1(1. 101
Consumer culru,.". 46, ;). 8,-8~. U7.130
Con...rgence. digi[~I. 75-76
Conway. Lynn. \lS-101.117, 1)0. '7'. 183; u
tr;1nsgender per"'n, 1011116
Coombe. Roocm.ry, 146
Corpoe~[e liber.Ji,m. 18.13-17. 80. '09. 111,
1\13"11
COUnterrulru.... '960'. 46-so. 58, 118. 114-115.
'71: and wci..J di".frtction. 47-SO
Coun[crculru,.". compu.ct. 6: conAuence wirh
neolibenw.m. 1)6-1]7: e~. 45-SO.
'14-US. I)O.Set..u.. Counrerrulru,.". 1960s
Coyne, Ridu.rd, 196n4

w"t'''''

Com"'''''g, 57. 63. 8)

C,."wt, \\.'~yne, 160-161
Cringdy. Raben, I~), 199n57
Criticallcg.ol.uulics, 143-140;.147~'..8, 149-1SO
Crocker. Steve. \I), 100, 117
Culrural materialism,). 7. \I. 18, ,8o~,81 &e
,,1'0 Sodal construe[ion
CuJrural studies. 11-11, 18\1n4
Curry. Adam. 111

"4

Index

Dunb1r Hat ChriSlin;l. 10

0)"$<>1\, ElIh , 11. 1)6, lSI. 161-161. 166

Gamhun. NidtoW, :IOOn18

Eddmlm, Bc=d, I...., 148

E<!w1rd., Paul. 19-10. 17, 47. 51-;3
Eff.ctS, 1-). 8-9. lB. 40; of cont....diclion.). 9;
of eulture on intern ... ). 180-181
Elecrronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 57, 120
ElIul.JJcquc.s. SI
Emerson. R:.Jph W.Jdo, 44-45. 163,173
Ench:Ul.tmcnt.Stt l);Stnch:umnenr; ""'eba-. Max
Encydopedie drum. )5-36
End-ro-cnd design, 1. 90;. 116. 183
Engelbart. DougIu. 5. 11. 34-3S, 37-4),
44, ;4-S0;. go, loa, 19Jn31:"mo<h of;ill

dcmos.- 40-4). ,6g, '7'. '95"56

Enligntenmenl. 3$-)7: limi", ro,}II. 48,
67.171
EnroR, 1)1

Gl'Q. Bill 64. no 9'. u}, IZ8, 14).151-IS3, 161

Guru. Oifrord, 4~. '95n59
Gcndct. '0-13. 48.178, 101m6
Gen.nl MJgic. '07
Gen.ra1 Publi<: LieenK (GPL), '55. ,85
Gibaon. WiIIi1m, 81. 111. 11)
Gilder, George, 98. 1;1. 1;6
Gille,pi Tarleton. 101n4
Gillies.james,94
Gingrich. N.wt. 1;1. 185
GinJbu..g, Douglas H., 74
Gi[dman, Lw, 189n7, 110nl0
Goe'Ih~, 59.

145,1g6n5

Googk. '7S, 179

Gorb1chev. Mikhail, 87

sa.

Entrcprcncuri.J namn"". 69-70. 79. 91,

116-117: 15 ronuRtic. 89. \13. 1)0.IJ5. '56,
'71,179
Ethemf't.\l4
Experience. felt, 6-1. 18, of eomputing. 17;
eonnection to society. 6. 71: embodied, 18.
40.47; .hJ,."d. 41

Go.Albenjr~

106-107. II}, 118: 1000 presidennal amfWgn. 114

Gore. Alben Sr.. 108
G,am.a, AnlOnio,I9Jn18
G,."y. Thoma '4;
H"biflU. 68. Il)
H1Cker ethic. 90, 169
Hackers. 5'-51, 89-91
HAl. compu"" in lOOI. 18. 6). 8,. 91

2lS

Indu

171.187: HegtliJn, 4. 51; of inleen ~o:

and nledi1. ,89n7; againsr relwlogy. OJ. P.
34-)5

Compunic~tions. 75

ftmcrion
Fru Sofrw1re r"Oundarion (FSF). 15', 'SS
Fru .peech, 78, 110. 164; in conAkr wilh mar
kel.167; equated with free 11l1,k".1]6-137
Fre.dom. negati'" vs. po.si[ive. 182-18)
I',irdman. Ted, 18\1n8
FriNman, Tho=, 1)7
From.... mctaphot. Ill. 119, 1)1

I-Iomeb,."w Compurer Club. 64. 143

Hoover, H.rberl, 14
Horkheimer, Max,]8

Dp pby 4Z, '9sn5\1

Descan.s, R.ne, >IS, 58
Designing de.ign nmhod., \17-\19, 101

".

ers, l.9. 57. 67. u8, 19)n31

Compulsion [0 use computer. S.. Computer
holding power

p:lign.110n3

Foucaulr, Michd. 146. s.. <ilu> Aurhor.

Dean. Howud. '75: 1(0) Ptnid.ntial cam

"

Folbre. N1ncy, 111017

Common StnSt. 6-7. 193nz8

Communiati.'t: "I. numeric usa of comput-

Riebl'. P1[rice. 1$g05

'"

Hawley. Ellis. 19)n21

H11u. Friedrich, 7J
Hegel 14)
H.rder.). G .. 19
Heritage Foundarion. 74
Hik:ik. Mich2c1 A. 197n.6
History. (hoo"Y of.). ,89n4: lnd ronlingency,

';, ~ ~

kctuaI proptrty; Propeny tigh",

Damton,. Robert. 60
DARPA. Set ARPA
o"vin. Bmn, 11

Hall, Stuart. 88, '81

HJr.lway. Donna. 8. 19om6
Hauben, Miehacl1nd Ronda, 94, 117. IH-IS5,

" "
i:!0

rion of d... lnlem). 1I0-1I}, II~

Commodificarion, 78, 87. 167. 5 a/s<> In[d-

F...ling; of computer inler:lCtion. 7, 17-18. 41,

86.88,166,158; of mm~l. 86-88,93; romantic:. 45. 60. 158. Set <ilu> E:.rperienc~. felt
Ftfs.,n$lcln. 1... 64
F.minism. II. 48. 178
Fisch. Cbud. S. 10m21
FU.her. W"dIi2m, '4Z, ,8gn9.107n16

~ f[1

CM""IWli,," Quj"r,.,ly (eQ). 9'-9Z

Col.nun. E. GJbridb.19JnZ4
CoInidgt, ~\I("I TJyIor. 39;"Kubb Khm: ~9
Com-pciv (CommtteWiurion and PrM.ti:u-

Cyberlaw. 149. 151

Cybernetics, 1\1. )1. n Sa "Iso Sys[erru science
Cyberpunk. 4, S\I. 81. 11)
C~e. Ill, 11)-114. 11\1, 1)1; as ronuR[ic.
114. I))

3:ri;,

------~

1M dOJed W"rIJ (Edwards). '9. ~7

Coast, Richard H.. l00nl4

Hughu, Thomu. 16-a7, 94-9<;. 17~,18]

Hypm.n, 6,11, 54-56, 57, 141; ,imiLu;ry to
cross-,."fcn:nccs., 36
IBM. 18, }O. 48. 57, 111. '57. 159: IBM PC,68;
Sysrtm 6 compulcr. 6;-66
Ilku. hu.ory of. 4-;: lTom lhe bottom up, 7
I&ntiry. s.. Stllhood
Individu..Jism. 10, I~'; as c,."Jti...,. 45. 5', '45;
poalt..i...,. 4.I\lOn9; and poSulruClUr:>!ism.
10: n.rional. 45: romanlic, \1-10. 4S-46, 166;
llfili(:lri~ll. 45. 89. 145
Inforlll1! b"guJg", 53-55. 58. \115-97. '01. 111.
110-111,17', '85. S also Rom,ntici.m, and

pla'n language
Infonn1.ion socict)\ theory of. 7'. 75-79. 91
Informa.ion ,upemighway, 108. "3. 1~)-n4,
1)1: urii< uses of
10)n)}, :to)n44
Innovarion, rhnological. S technological

.ftTn.

,nlloOYUion
InrdlecnW propel'"l).' U J bundle of righu. 79;
chang.. in, 1601; as ...pn:uion of conrnlldicriolU of propeny in gene",l. 1)9; Jnd
inform1fion wciery. 77: and TN Nelson,
')\1-140: ""oon.:. of. l89n9. 101n16. s.. "Iso
Propeny rightS
Jntetaetivity, c01npUl.... )I; duire for. 39. 41.
171.Srr ali" Feeling. of com pUler interaet;on
11llernalion.J Srandard. Organiulioll (ISO).

,,'

Invisible collrg~,
coll"8e, n,
11. 6},
6). 6~.
64. 10~,
101, 191nlS
191nlS
ll\visibl~
Irr:l.lion.J aubc,r:,""',
exuber:lnce. 117-119,
111-119. ')1-IH
Ip-In
lrrnionu
j2!:l;i. P~ter,
Peter. I~S
145
Jani,
Jobs. Stev~n,
Slewn. 64,
64. 69-70,
69-10, 89,
89. '69,
169. '7'
111
jobs,
lUhin, Bri.n.
Bri~n. 114.10)n19
U4.10)019
Kahin,
K~hn. Holxrt,
Roben, (0)-104
10)-104
Kahn.
K...il'}'J, D.vid,
David. ~oon1S
loon15
Kairys.
Kanl, lmn,anue!,
Immanuel )8,
)8. )g,
)9. '4)
Kant,
K~p<M". MilCh.
Mitch. S6,
56. 110-111
110-111
Kapor.
K...y.Abn.41
K:..y,
Al.:ln, 41
K~ypro. 80-81
Kaypro.80-81
KtUy. Kevin,
Kevin. 91
92
Kelly,
Keyna,,}ohn Maynord,
MXyn>.rd. 71,
11, 7},
13.180
Keyna,John
180
Kill", .pp,
~pp. 116
Killer
Erldci, Igonlo
190nlo
Kilpinen, Erkki,
Kirtler. Friedrich.
46. 196nS
IIl'6n5
Kittler.
Friedrich, 46,
KInner.An.
>()In+O
Kleiner. Art. 91.
91, 10'"40
Kkinrodr:::.
Leon~rd.I01
K.I~inrock, Leonord,
107
Klii\~. Billy. S6
s6
Klil""r,
Knowkdge
"Ofkcr, 111-125.
ll1-118;:as
Knowledge ..
"'otker,
I11-11S, 117-111;
all
someone
processing.
somCOne who don
d<Xs own word procasing.
114,ljO
114,1}0
b. 18g1\9;
IlsIn9: for in
ils own
own~.
sake, 8), 'S8:
lS8:jUSI
just
L..bor,
Labor. 81,
<CW1n1
uwmi for.IS)-I54;
for. IS]-IH: unW1ged.ls8,
unwagc.d, IS8, 160.118,
160. 171,

.s<

'"

L1w
Law and
lnd economics
Ol'IOmics movmlenr.11.
movem~nr, 71, 73-14.
7)-74, 77.
n.
91.141,
91.147, ISO
Leiner. &ny,
103-10<4
Borry, 10}-104
Lessig.
16)-164
Lenig. L1wrcnce,
Lawrence, 149-IS1. IS6, 163-164
l.ev)~
Lcvy. Sfe",n,
Sre""n, I, 89-91.
89-91, lSO.19sns6:
ISO. '9SnS6; S"~
UnSe of
irony in.l09n1
in, 109nl
LiNnarilnism.
Libert.rianism. n.
11. 1)1.
1]1. Ij6.
1]6. lS'.
lSi, 160. 161.
161,
10ln1
10m1
Licklider.jocph.
Lidclider,joscph. 11.
17. '9-H,
19-n, jO-J5.
}O-)S, 48.
48, S).
Sj.
Sol-55.
H-SS, 96,
96. 101, 111,
171, 194n4S
11I4n4S
Lighr.jennifer
Lighr,jennifrr S
S.... 194nn
11I4n)}
Linux,
Linux. 139.
139, '51-159.
1S7-IS9. 177.
In, 18S
'Si
Lipuriro.
Liplrtiro, Kcnnerh"91nl6
Kenneth. IIllnl6
Lill.
Abn, 110
170
Liu, Abn.
Lockc.john.
Locke,john, 4.10,
'I, 10. 11,
n. 140.142.
'40, 141. 144.189n9.
144. 1'9n9.
206n1
91. 93,
Locke1n
Lock.tan vision,
vision, 11,
71, 88.
88.111,
II), 1)1,
1)7, 145,
14S. 176.
176. 181;
181:
ddined.
189n9
dclined.I89nll
Lyor~rd,je~n-Pr:lncoi$.15
Lf"t1rd, Jun .Ft1neoil, 7S

"""'
216
216

Index
Index

Muy
MlCy eon~renC(s.
conferences, )1,
)1. Sl
53
"Mon.Complller
"M1n-Compuler Symbiosil,"
Symbiosis: )0,
)0. )1-)4
P-J4
Mork.tt
Mukct fundamemalisn,.!in
fimdamentlllism. S Neolibcr:l!ism
NMliber:tlism
Morllul.,
Mukkub. Arm"
Arm1S Cliffnrd,
Clifford. 69-70,
69-10, 199n1.
19901_

Iggn)
19'}n,
M1rvin. Corolyn,
Morvin,
Cuol)'n. 79.
19. 1111116
191n6
M1rxism, aD,
Mlrxism,
10, 71,
11, 88.178
88. 118
Muculinity, 10-1).
10-1). S9,
59. 178:
118: ond
1nd lonelineu,
londinesl'.
Muculiniry,
n. I)
It.
Mlllhews.
M1Me..... Duncan,
Dunan.lOOnll
aOOnl1
McChesney, (too.,rr
Robert W..
W~ 111n14
111014
McChesncy,
McColough,
McColougb. PCler
Per... C
C~
.. }o.
,0. 41,
41, 48-49'
48-49,(1)
17)
McCullough. Deel.:ln,
Dbn. "4.
114. 1)6
1)6
McCullough,
McI.uhan.
McLuhan. Mo"haJJ.
M11'$1uIl 7S
McPher$On.
McPhCQOn, C. B.. 190n9
Me.,1.
Mead, C
Carvtt,
..ver.1l7-98
91-'-98
Muka-.
Meeker, MIry.
r.br)-.1)1
I)a
-Memes." S.
S,6-7
"Memes.,"
6-7
the Merna.
MelTlC:ll:. )6-)7:
]6--)1: (Wtf'U2IN
O\"l'm:ucd in.IIuenu
inBuenee of,
of.
194nSlIII~nS1. S..u..
Su "IJ<) Bush, V.nnevlr
V~nnev:lr ,he
the memO'
rnemcr
Menon, Robert.
Roben, 11, 190nn
190nll
Mecca1&,
10sn111
Metcalfe. Robert, 105018
Mierocompuler.
6)-67, 11:
71; poIirial
poIiric11 economic
rconomic
MiaocomputCl,6j--61,

I
j

Negropome,
Negropontc, Nichow,
Nichol.., S6
56
Nelson.
Nebon. Theodore
Theodore (Ted).
(Ted). 1.1'.
t. 11. H-6].
54-6). 66-67.
66-67.
16S.
16S. 16g.
16\1. 177;
111; compued
comp.rcd 10
ro Willi'llllllokr.
Willi1m Bl.ke.
61-6);
I)S-141
6'-6); theory
theory of
of copyright,
copyright, 61,
61.1]8-141
Ncolilx,.,lism:
NMliberalism: lnd
and computing.
oompuring.. 2.
1, 69.
69, 7'-14.
11-14.
87,169;
87. 16\1: criricisms
criricisms or,
of. 16.
16. 138,
lJ8. 160;
160; decline
decline
of,
of. I)S,
1)8. 169.
169. 175-176;
t75-116: drect
dfe<:1 on
on inrelieCrIIal
inlellecnuJ
proprrty
property l.w,
bw. 146.
146. 160;
160: 1nd
md information
infonn1tion
.ociety.
socief). 76-79;
76-19; 19901
1\I9OS ",vivol
rcvMl. of.}.
of. J, IlS-I}7,
')5-1J1.

,"."

"Nel
"Nel neur....lily."
nnnra!.iry; IS~.
184. 11m14
111n14
Nrrit<ns
1S4-ISS
Nn,w" (Hauben
(H1Uben and H.uben).
H~ubero). 117.
111.1S4-ISS
126-117.I)O-I}], '59,
Neucape.
NetSCIpc, 99.
99 "9.
119,116-U1.Ijo-ljJ.
'59. 1611
168
Network
NelWOrk effts.
effects, t16-127
116-117
Network
(l(lem:ilitia. IS)
Nen"orkurmuliries.IS)
Ne,work
NeN..ork forums, 46, 56
S6
Nuworking and 1Oci.1
Ncno....rong
oociaI coru<:iousnas,
co~. 9]
II)
Neuromotlar
(Gibson), 11"
m.l1}
Nn.",,,",,ocrr(Gibson),
U)
New Deal.
DeaL 7J
Noble.
Nobk. David
Da.'id E,108n40
F~ 108n4O
Nonprofil
.lnJeturrs. 110-111,
Nonptolit I.ItUCtUrtS,
nO-ill. 116,
116. IS4-15S,
'S4-ISS,
In 184,186
l86
111.184,
NREN, 100-'OS,
'01-108, 114

muning
meaning of,
of. 19,
79, 81-3$
81-18
Microfilm,
)6
Microfilm. j6
MkroJOll, So.
80, 111.
In, 1)0-1]1,
1)0-1)1, 'J4.
IH. 151-1S).
lS1-IB. 151.
IS7.
Micrmoh.

"4-11S
NSFNET. 106-109.
106--10\1. "4-115
Nuclear
Wlr.. '9,
2)-14, ]1.
6)
Nuckar ""aI'
'9, 2)-14,
)1. 6)

160,168
Milit1ry.indusrri.1 complex,
cOI"pICl(, 16-11.
16-17, i),
)). 11,
71.
Miliwy-induscNI

Obaml. &r.ck.I6g,
Bor1ck. 169, 17S;
camplign's Ule
Olmn:o.
11S: camp:aigni
USC of the
internet. lIOn];
liOn); intelkctu:al
illtelJecrual pnallcls
pUllleb with
with
imemn.
n],
L",.ig. 107
Lessig.
'07n)1

liS, 101
95.'01
Milir.ry.indllslrial.university complex. 5
Srr
Miliwy-induscNI-univen.iry
Military.induSlri.1 complcx
Milit2ry-indusni.J
compkx
Minite!'
Minild. 80.
80, 86,
86. 94,
94. 115.
liS, 114
174
Modern <luronomouS
~uronomoulimaginative
illl.gin'lin hedonism,
hedonism.
1.1.5
117. &1' ,.I",
~IIO Campbell, Colin
Mogkn.
lSI
Moglen, Eben. 1,1
Montfort.
Montfon, Nick, 191nn
197nJ]
Moore's
6S, 81,
87, 9S,
liS, 98
Moore', L1w,
L..w, 6S.
Mos:uc
MOI.k browser. 11, 119.
119, 116-111, 1)0.
')0, 105n9.
10sn9.
Set
!in ~Iw
~IUI NClSClpe
Nellcape
MTV;111
MTV;lu
Mueller, Milron.
Millon, 165.
16s.10)n18
Mueller,
10)n18
Mumford, Lewis.
Lewi SI.
SI. ,6
S6
Music
Music downlo.ding,
downlO;lding. 44.
44. 1)9,
')g, 165.
16S, 11S
175

N.pstfr,11
N'pller,77
N.tion.l
Nllion~1Science
Science f'oundllion
r"Ound.1.tion (NSF).
(NSF). 14.
14, 16,
16,
95,96.106
9S, \)6, 106

30. S1-S8,
57-s8, 6'5;
6s; &llu",
failure of.
of,
Office .urom.t;o",
.ulom~rion. lD.
47-48
4]-48
Sa Offi
Office automation
.uroma!lon
Office of ,he
the future.
lU!u",.5
Richard, l\IOn16
190m6
Ohmann. Richlld.

Sou reI', 1)9,

154-162. '7S-'76:
cOur..,
Open Soul',
1]9. 1>4-,61.
t1S-116; course
speClrum. 166
Wire, 16S;
'6S; politics,IM;
politics, 166: spcarum,
w~rc,
Open Source
Souree lniti.tivc.
Initilti,"C, lSI!
lS9
Open
pro,oeol, 116,
116, 17.
OSI pt'O<ocoi.
114
Oder, P.lli.
Paul, 194n51
Ig4nS1
Ode!,
Packer switching.
swirching. 1',
Zl. 94.
94, 96
p.cket
Panum, Georgios, 196114
196n4
P.nris,
PARe. Stt
Sa Xerox
Xerox PARC
PARC
PARe.
Peer.to'pr production.
production, 184
IIl4
Peer-to_peer
rompurer (.s
(as term).
rerm), 6]
6]
Personal computer
Pela5.john Durham,
Durh.m, II
Peters.John
Bry.n, 192n6
191n6
pfaffenbcrger. Bry.n,
pr:,ffcnberger.
PLATO con'purcr
computet system,
'ysrem, )5.
)S. 194"48
'94n48
PLATO
217
217

Index
Index

PI1)fulness
n, 4~,
PI'jfulness (computing),
(computing). )1,
)I,)J,
41, S8.
58. 66.
66. 68,
68,
Ig4n4S;
194n45; and
1nd web
web browsing.
browsing. 117.
117. Set
Stt Allll
~IJ(/
Sdf.morivuing
....rion; RUlIOning.
Sdf-moriv~ringahi!l
exhilaurion;
Rcl$Oning.
lld leplration
in5lrumcnlll
inslrumentll.and
Kp~r:ltion of
of munl
mUns .nd
and
ends
109n70
I'ollnyi,
Polanyi, Karl,
K~r1,l09n10
Politiel
and fcchllOlogy,
Politicl.1.nd
technology. 6,
6. 1901111
190"'1
Pont.
M.n;:. 7S
1S
Pora!. M.re,
Po.ner,
Posner. Richard,
Rich.rd. 7~.100nI4
14.100nI4

,,'"

Posrmodetnisnl,
I'oamockrnism, 4,
4, 10.
10. JS,
JS, 75
15
POJlsltuclUralilm,
Poltl!ructul'l1ism, 144;
144; ~nd
and critique
critique of
of Ihe
<he
subjecr.
144-145
wbjr, 144-145
PredictiOll,
Prediction, malhemark.l,
llI.lthemaricaL 40.
40, 6),
6). 111
t71
Prodocfivity
Igl115
Produc:riviry paradox,
p.lIl":Idox.191ns
Property
of,
Pmpcny rightl:
rights: crysulline,
Cf)=tIline. 1)9-'41;
1)9-14'; limi..
limits of,
141-14).181-1',;
'4'-14).18,-182; Lockun,
Lockun. 4.
4, 140.
140. I'gnll;
189n9:
muddy,
muddy, 141-145;'"
'41-14S::as ncceuary
neccu:uy for
for capitalC2piWilm,
ism. 140.
'40. 166-167;
166-161: and
and $Oftw.re,
ooltwHt., 76-7',
16--]8,
1]8-1]11;
II1IuI as
keys.tone righr,
righi, 167,
1)S-lj9: IDlUI
as k.eysi:one
161. 169
169
ProcoeolJ,
inrerner.
126
Prorocola, internet, u6
Purpose,
socw, 8
Purpose.1OCi.aI.
Radio. hiarory
1)4, 141,
Radio,
hwQC'}' of.}.
of, J. 11,
21. 111.
Ill, 1)4,
142. 106n))
106,,])
RInd,
Ayn.
73:
and
properly
righrl,
14S.
~nd. Ap ]); and pn>pcny righa. 140.
'40.145IS4,
lSI
IS4.181
RAND
1}
RAND corpur-llion.
rorpor:21ion. 1j
Rarion.l choia
choice theory,
(4)
Rarional
theory. (4)
Ibulchenberg.
Rober!.
56
Ra.-henba-g. Robert. S6
R.ymond, Eric,
Eric, 1,lB.
1)11.157-160,
171
Raymond,
IS1~160.111
Reagan. Ronald,
Ron~ld, 21,
11, 6\1~10,
611-70, 8].
87, 108.
108, n6.16\I:
116, 169;
Rc~gan.
Rnsoning. inJ.lrumen.:zI,
inSlrUmellla], 18-19.110.
18-'9. 170, 171.
In;
RcHQf1ing.
']1. 17J:
and barch
batch procel!ing.
18: ,riri,ilflU
criticisms or,
.nd
processing. 18;
of,
)]-)4,4],
So. 171; and
.nd KpuaDon
.eplndon of
mUllS
B-)4. 4). SO,111:
of muns
.nd ends,
ends. 19.}4,
Ig,)4, 41,
41, S',
51, 66
66
~nd
Disellchlnrment; \\'ebcr.
\\'elxr,
Reenchalllnlenl. Su DiS"l1hannnenr;
Rccnchammcnl.5

M1X
M"
Rcjfication,87
Reiliorion.
'1
Reigning ideas
ideas (....
(n. populu),
popular), lS.
15, 19)n18
19)n18
Reigning
IUllo v. ACLU.
ACLU, :lIon8
1Ion8
~"o~.
Request fat
for Comments
Comlll"n" (RFCs).
(RFC.), 11,100-101,
Requese
11. 100-101,

,,'

Rheingold, How.rd.
Howard, 94.
94. 194n41
IIl4n41
Rheingold.
Righl$ discour~.
diKOUr'K, 77,
'" 7\).
711, 141
147
Righes
Ritchie. D(unis.
Dellnis, lOO
100
Riechie.
17S, 100"'8
1oonl8
RobbiM, Kevin,
Kevin, 115,
Robbins,
RobinlIOn Cru~oe,
Cruwe, 1)
71
Robinson
Rodma.n, Gil.
Gil, 191n19
191nlg
Rodm~n.

Rol!ing 510.1(.
Slo"', S6,
Rolli"g
56, 114
1:14
Rom~nriciJm; ~ttilUdes
acritudes
Rom~nlicism:

towuds ,c.:hnology.
tedHlulogy,
lowards
5', 59-60:
S9-60; ~nd
and C~pil~lisrn.
capiralism, 134,
1)4, [19-1S1:
17\)-18a; ~nd
51,
computing.
44-46, 111-ln:
171-17J; ~s
u critique of
compuling. <14-46,
ralionalism, )9-40, 17J:
In; de6ncd.
defined, 45-46.
4S-46,
r:uionalism,l9-40.
'96114, 196n5, 196n6:
196n6; disringuished
dislinguished from
196n4.
love, 196n6: dfNU
erl'ectJ of.
of,
tradition of romantic
tndi[ion
rom~nlic love.

'74-'76; u~s form of Klfhood,

sd/hood, 9-10.
9-'0, 6l,
6), 'n;
17J;
114-116:
hum~nist, 50-sa;:and
50-51; and konoclum.
iconoclasm, 46.
46, S),
hum:anist,
5).
lal. 114-115,
IJ7, 149. 185;:and
185: ~nd
S5-59. '1', Ill,
55-59.11[.
la4-la5,ll7,149.
imm~nent pt'IlSSU.l9-"O,
processes, )9-40, 17J:
171; limiu of.
of,
immanmt
176-179: and.
and mO<kmity.
modernity, 45-46.
4S-46, 51,170-171.
51, 170-171.
176-[19:
nature,S';
and plain
175-176, lSo-I81:
180-l8a; ~nd n~IUK,
51; an<!
175-116.
l~nguage, 46. 114;
174: Promc:d~:an
Promelhean lile".ry
literolry
bngw.ge.
g<'nius. 60,
6), 145-146.
145-146,108nso;
reaclion,
pit',
60. 6).,
108n5O: 15
U .:ICTion,
I1J, 111,11);
171, 17); l'Ca<ktship.
re~dership, 59-60,
59-60. 6).
1,
1, Ul.
6), 68;
~lhero, I. 46. 56, 59, 6a-6),
61-6), 61.119-90.
68. 89-90.
tcb..1hno,l.
11)-114,1)1-1)1, '51,
IH, 'n,
17J, 185:
and KbdJion.
rebellion.
Ul-U4,1)1-I)a.
las;:and
ulf-upuuion. I,I. 4.
46.68,11),
I)). (1),
'7J, 175:
..6,68,
U.J.. 'n,
115: &df.~.
4,
'IS. 60-61.
60-61, 6a.
61. 61,1)).,
68, 1)),159,
sociology
I), 45,
'l,
'59, 17J;
In; IOCioIogy
180-t81;:11 SU"CfUrC
structure offling.
of. 46. 17S.
'75. 180-111;:11
offttling.
15.158-160.16(;: view
offrdon', 161
15,15$-160,166:
ricw oflTcr:dom,
Rose. Carol M~
M.. 167.107nl1.
161, 101nll, 109n70
RoK.
l09n70

Sdf-moliv~ringuhilarnion,
17, 41-"3.
41-.4), SI.
58,
exhibr~tion. '7,
5'. 58.
Self.motivlting
195n59
9O.11l511S9
90.
Sclli"g the
,h. Ai,
Air (Srreerer).
(Smmr),)3
&lling
sdf. Su
Scr Individullism.
IndividualiJm, utililarian
ulililarian
Shopkeeper self.
RO..l1nc, III
1]1
Siino, Ros.anne.
Singletons lnd
and mulriples:
multiples; 1[-1a.
ll-a1. e
St. "Iso
allll
"Singletons
Merlon, Robert
Roberr
Merion,

Skilli"g.jeftrey, 1)1
SkilJing.Jelltty.131
Sklu. Marrin,
Mutin, 193nl1
IIl)n11
Sklar.
Sluhdor (website)"5a,
(website), 15a. 161-163
16a-t6]
SWhdOf
Smith, Adam. 140
Smirh,Achm."40
Soci~1 COnJlruc!ion:
feeling.,]1 of rk
Ihe
Socw
consttuetion: and feelings-l:
inlernet, 186-187: and muning.l;
meaning.): and
inrrm<:l.I86-181;:and
produ~tivily .. fin~cc\lrollC idUS.l-l,
id.. u. 1-l. 9. 1)5:
I]SI
produetiviryofinuror:ue
rhnology, 8-9.
8-1l, 11-13
n-a]
of rrchnol<>g)"
Social illluality,
ine'lu~lity. 39.141.
]Il, I'll, 116
SocW.
176
Socill1y
erotati..., objects.
oo;tS, 1',
187. I1tn17
SocW.Iy 1tVOC1~
7'. 187,1111117
ofknowledg~, 5, ..6;:and
46; and changel
Sociology ofknowlcdgc,
manges in
idul.4-6
idns,4-6
Soviel Union. colli.psc
coI11pJC of.
of, 11.
87, Il6,
Il6. IJ7
1]1
Sovirr
al. 17.
Sprcl(bl\Ctl. 8.J..14.
8), 84, 85
Sprndshttt.
as
Sr:rUm.n, Richard,
Richud, 9', ISS-S;
'SS-51
SnIlnun.
Sf~nford Rr$ardt
Resun:h lnwlU[e
IntlitulC (SRI).
(SRl)']4
&:mW
34

Roy. '9. '90nl)

Rosenzweig.
R.oKn~ Roy,19.lgonl)

Sf~lC,thtoryof.
'9)n14
Statt.~.
of,I9J1U4

Ross, AndlCw,lll1ll11
Andrew. l11nl9
Roa.

Slrlh R~
R.. 10[n19
101n19
Sedn, Sarah
Sui",

Rossetto,
Louis. 1:J4-u5.
114-115. 1)1
Rossnto. LouiJ.
Rough consc.nsus
consensus and
~nd running mele,
tade, 71,
11. 95.
95,
11).174.18)
11),11".
(8)
90
Rousseau,jean-j.cques.
Roussuu.JunJ<KqUeS. 60,
60. go
Ruin
jlck P..
Ruina.Jzck
P~ 17
Rule ofbw,
ofIaw, '40-141.
140-141, 147

SIt:llegic Cornpuring
COlllputing InitiatM
I"iliath'e (SCI), 101-105.
101-IOS.
SmtTrgjc

S~chs.jdrrey.I)7
Suhs.JeKrcy.ll7
SAGE. 11.
17. )1. 19..
'94n)7.
SAGE,
n)7. 194n)8
Sapir-Whorfhypothesis. )7. 195n5)
S~pit.Whorfhrpolhcsis.)7.
[95n5)
14S
Saunders. D~,id.
David, 145
Saunden.
Schiller. Hel'bo:n:...8
Herben. 48
EriC:l. 197nl6
1971116
Schoenberger,
Schoenberger. Erica.
Schoffsral.
Martin, llO-1I4
flO-It4
SchofF'staL Marrin.
Science and
an<llCchnology
at-l), 189n4.
189114,
Seiena
Ic.:hflology "udie
sludies, 1,1-1).
190nl4; Strollg
program in.
l\)lnl6
190n14;
srToflg prognm
in, 11l1nl6
Sci<"ct, 1M
lbe Erulle"
F...m lkr (Bush),
14.14
S!irHu.
Em/1m Fro"I;"
(Bush). "4.
74
Sdf. S
Sec Setfhood
Self.
Selfhood
studia. u; European.
Europe~n,
Sclfhood: in cultural
cultut:ll s([1dies.I[:
Selfhood:
'O-tt;
10-1), 144-145.
'44-145, ,81:
18a; rel,rional
...,l.arion~l
10II: forms of. 10-[).
chat:lctof.
la: slippery chancrer
eh~~ler of.l0,
'45,
characrer
of. 11:
of. 10. '45.
u"i~liacd, 11
'9Ina); ansforming.
Ir;ansfonning.llli
'9'n13:
111: univerulizcd.
II

",

218

Index

~0~1I15
aOJnl5
SIT:negic Dd'msc
Dtf~nse I~
Initiative ("Sa<
("Sur Wan
W.rs),
10, 116
Str:llcgic
1. w.1l6

Subj~etivilY. Sa
S Sdfhood
Selfhood
Sub;ccm~l)~
COJl~plC, ISO
180
Subprime Mortgage
Morlglge Colbpsc.
Subprimc
S"'huland.lvan,
1941137
Surherbnd,lv;",. ]1,
JI, 194nJ7
Swidlcr.
11l6n7
S..~d.Icr, Ann. 196n7
SyJI~ml Kiencc.
Kl~nce, 18-l0:
crifidst11a of,
Systems
lS-)O; cOticisms
of. 48

Thnologr policy,
policy. 106
'06
Technology
ThnOlronic .weiy.
socie<).15
Tc.:hno,ronic
75
lOCiety, 75
Telemarie society.
Telematic
Tennes.e V..Iley
Valley Aurhority
Amhority (TVA), 14,
1), 78
Tenncsee
~4. 7l.
Terranova, Tizian~.
Ti:ia."'.1I1t119
Terranov:o,
alln19
In 161
16.
Thatcher, Margarel,
M.rgo.ret, '31,
"1h.y just
ju" don',
dOl" geT
gCI iT;
;1," la4-u5.
114-1'5, [S,
18,
!hey
Ken. 100
Thompson. Ken,
ThOlelU. Henry David, 5',
SI, S9
Thoreau,
59
Til'mann. Mich~cl,
Michael, a08n45
.08n4,
TlCnunn,
Tomer, Alvin.
Alvin, 15.
1]1
75, 86, 131
Tofller,
Toollcit.
cul'lIr.t1. 46.
46, 65.I96n7
68. 1\)6n7
Tool
kir.nabunl,
Ton'1ld,. Linus. '55-157.
ISS-'57.1n,lIl1ll'
TO<V;Ilds.l.int',
In. lIlnl5
Touch..",..." intcrfxc,
,ntemcl', lS.
)5, '94n41
'94n48
Touchscrn
Turlde, Sherry, 8.
8, I1ma7
Turkle.
ZIIm.7
89, 95.
IlS, (1),19Onl)
18]. l\lOnl]
Turner, Fred, 46-47, S6,
Tumrt'.
56. 19,
g"Y' in a garage; 69-70,
69~10. 91,
1l4. 1I6
116
"Two guys
9", 94.

gangc:

Ullman. Ellen.
Ellen, 10-1)
UUman.
Io-Il
Unger, RobrTtO.149
Robeno, 149
Unix, 100,104,
100, 104,116,
16]. 18)
Unix.
n6, '54-1SS,IS7,
'54-15S, IS;, 16},.18j
val"e, 84
Usc v:ah.IC,14
USENET, 94. 97,100.
91, 100, 154
lS4
USENET.
Utilinri~nism, 81l. 14}.
14), 155.
'SS' 181,
181. 195n59
19,nS9
UriJirarianism,II9,

W.rdrip-Fruin,
Noah, 197n)}
11l7n]]
Wardrip-Fruin. Noah.
\V1n, [an,
Jan, 10
Wan.
\Veber, Ma
44, 170.
170.196ns;
the ProresProlesMax. 44.
196n5: and rhe
d.ive affinil)',
affinil}', 88
!:Inr
181-,81; and elutive
121ll ethic, 181-181;
Websler. Fnnk,
Ft:lllk, 175.100..,S
115. 100nl8
\\'ebSler.
110
Weizenbaulll.jClseph. SO-5",
50-51, 86.
86, go
WeizrnNuln,Joscph.
COUI Compurcr
CompUler Faire.
F.irl', 66-67
Well ColSt
Wesllnoreland, WiUiam,
William, ao
10
Weumorrbnd.

Su Knowledge womr
worker
While rolLar.
collu. Set
Whirr
\\'hiTm.n, \1.'..11,
Wah, 60
Whin'lan,

IVl,ol. Eilrtb
Ed'll, CtI"JI<>g.
Whole
Co:'il"':. 4'. 5]-54,
5)-54. 51-58.
57-5S, 91
\Vittler. Norbm.
Norbert, ]1,
SO. Sl
Wiener.
)1, $0.
53
Williaml, William Applrm1J1,
Appleman, '9lnn
IIl]nn
Williams.
\\'inner. Langdon.
L.ngdon, 'gonll
'90nla
Winner.
lVir,J, "4.
114. 119.
"9, 112.
11', U4-U5.llI-lla.
U4-115. 1)'-']1, 141,156.
147, '56,
Wi,..J.

".

",0

\Olfolf. Gary,ljl-I)2.
Gary, IJl-I, I6I,I96n4;
168. lj)6n4; lenle
Wolf,
KnSC of irony
in.l09n1
l09na
in.
Wolfe. Tom, $7,
57, 16
\I.'elfe,
,6
Woodm.n.su, Mud",.
Martha, 145
WoodlNnStt.
Woodward, K...rhkm,
Kalhleen. 56
Wood\lt'2J"d.
proceaing. 1,
8. 57,14.
57. 84, as.
85, la4
114
Word pror~ng.
1. 8,
Wordsworth.
William, 45, 51.
5', 590
59, 14S
Wordswonh. William.
145
Wo:ni:rk, 5l:C'\Tn.
Seel'en, 64.
64, 66,
6(;, 69-70.
69-70, Sg.
89. '7'.
'1', '99na
'Illlnl
\\'<r..ni:llt,
Xerox, ]0.
47-411, 51.
57, 101,
'\)8n)8. Set..Is.>
S "up
Mn.>x.
)0. 47-49,
loa,198n}8.

Andries, 6.19,
6, '9, 4',
41, 54,65.
54. 65. '79
'71l
Van Dam.
Dam.Andries,
Vietnam
War, 41.
47. 50.
50, 14,
U5. 17)
Vic[lU.m \\'ar,
74.12<;.
'n
(Very Large
urge Suk
Scal. Inrrgnrion)
In'egralion) microVLSI (VN)'
97-99, 104
chips, 16.1l5,
16. 9s. 97--99,

Xerox PARe
XnoK
PARC
X.rox PARC,
PARe. .....
44. 49-so.
4\)-50, S;.
57. 65.
65, 69. go.
IlO. 97,
Xero;c
91,
91l-IOO, 116, 198n38
99-100.1l6,lllSnll

19-:0,17,)1
Waldrop, M. MiTchell.
Mitchell, lor-10.
W..Idrop.
17. J1

Zachary. G. Pa5<:al, '1l3n19

"m.

Taylori:ing the
Ihe offia.
office. "I.
41. 6J.
6). 65, 67. S.r
Tlylorizing
Set ,,110
Office auro"",tion
~tlfOnlation
TCP/IP.
'04, 106.
I1S-118. 116.
la6. Il5
I)S
TCPIIP. 94. 104.
106, 115-118,
Tu~hout, Zephyr.
lIOn)
Tuchout.
Zephyr, alon3
Te~hnoiogiclI1utOnomr.
8.1]
Tcchnologial
aUIOnOmy, 8.
J)
Tl'~hnologicaldererminism.
dClcrminilm.16;
Te.hnologi.al
76: eritid:"',
cri,ici~ed. 1.
~.
8,18]-184
8.ISJ-18..
Te~hnological diffusion.
diffmion, 114,
Technologicl1
IJ4. 19)n11
[9)nal
Tl'ehnoiogic.1
Iineu mooel
mod~1 of,
innov~rion: linur
Technological innovation:
109,
19lnl1; originaling
lhe individual
109. 193nJ!;
origin..ing in the
individual,
political COncern.
concern, 10-11;
'0-11; theories
ehroria of.
of,
5I; ~I politi,,1
SI:.1S
10-1). e
Scr a/so
a/lo Bush.
Bllih. Vlnncvar,
V~nncVJIr. model of
ao-a3.
."nolngle.1 inflovalion
innovllion
'echnologiCll
119
2/9

Index