Biopolitical Simulations:

Governing Life in FuturICT

Submitted by Helge Peters (33206931) in partial requirement for the degree of MA Media and Communications in the Programme in Contemporary Cultural

Processes, Goldsmiths College, University of London

August 2012

Helge Peters (student no. 33206931) Course code: MC71044A Course title: MA Media and Communications (theory) dissertation Supervisor: Dr Sarah Kember Date: 31 August 2012 14991 words

2

Abstract FuturICTisacurrentproposalforanEU‐fundedbigscienceprojectwhichseeks

toleveragedatafromtheinternetinordertocreatepredictivesimulationsof

globalsocialandeconomicsystems.Utilisingtheoreticalframeworksand

simulationtechniquesinformedbycomplexityscience,theprojectpromisesto

developnewformsofgovernanceinacomplexworld.DrawingonMichel

Foucault’sanalysisofbiopower,thisdissertationexamineshowandwithwhich

consequenceslifefiguresasanobjectofknowledgeandagovernabledomainin

FuturICT.

WhereastheknowledgeoflifewhichbothMichelFoucaultandGeorges

Canguilhemdescribeforthe19thcenturystressedthemesoforganic

homeostasis,contemporarycomplexitytheoriesandthediscourseofartificial

lifedescribelifeasaprocessofemergenceandself‐organisationabstractedfrom

itsmateriality.Itwillbearguedthatthesimulationsofemergentsocial

structures,andthetechniquesforguidingself‐organisationwhichFuturICT

derivesfrombiomimeticresearch,marktheentryofaspecificcontemporary

knowledgeoflifeintothegovernmentoflivingbeings.

Drawingonfeministandothercriticalanalysesoftechnoscience,theknowledge‐

makingpracticeofFuturICTisexaminedasrestingonaproblematicconceptof

objectivityandenactinganaturalisationofsocialrelations.Insistinginsteadon

life’sspecificityasanobjectofknowledgemightyieldwaysforresistingthe

instrumentalisationoflifeforprojectsofdomination.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 5

2. Literature review: the social and the vital

2.1. Biopower at the threshold of modernity 9

2.2. Knowing life 12

2.3. Regulating life 17

2.4. Cyborg life 22

2.5. Vital complexity 25

3. Methodology 32

4. Case study: governing life in FuturICT

4.1. FuturICT, big data and the technological zone 35

4.2. “Simulating life on Earth and everything it relates to“ 39

4.3. Simulation, situatedness, transformation 47

4.4. Imag(in)ing global life 52

4.5. Biomimetic government 57

5. Conclusion: biopolitical simulations 63

Bibliography 68

4

Table of Figures

Fig.1 Video still of revolving globe enveloped by data 52

Fig.2 The whole earth as interface 53

5

1. Introduction

Oneofthemostpeculiarcharacteristicsofcontemporarysocietymightbethe

convergenceofmedia,technology,andlife.AsSarahKembersuggests,

consideringthe"technologisationofbiologyfrommechanicalmetaphorsofthe

heartaspumptothegeneticinformationalisationoflifeitself"andthe

"biologisationoftechnologyfromcyberneticstoartificialintelligencetoartificial

life"(Kember,2006:235),theprocessesofexchangebetweenmedia,technology

andthelifesciencesseemtorunbothways.Atthesametime,theincreasing

involvementofnetworkeddigitalmediainsocialprocessesyieldsnewformsof

socialmeasure.Inasense,digitalmediahavetransformedtheactoftakingthe

vitalsignsofanaggregateoflivingbeings:iftheaddresseeofthequestion,“How

arewefeelingtoday?“isawholepopulation,theanswermightbefoundby

miningTwitterdatausinglanguage‐processingalgorithmsthatmeasurethe

affectiveconnotationofstatusmessages(Misloveetal.,2010).

DrawingonMichelFoucault’sconceptofbiopowerasamodalityofpower

predicatedonlife,Iwillaskinthisdissertationifthereexistsaspecific

biopoliticspertainingtothisscenarioofbiologisedmedia,mediatedbiology,and

digitisedpopulation.IwilldosobyinvestigatingFuturICT,arecentproposalfor

anEU‐fundedbigscienceprojectwhichpromisestoleveragedatafromthe

Internetinorderto“simulatelifeonEarthandeverythingitrelatesto“

(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:76).Thus,thequestionIwilladdressishow,andwith

whichconsequences,lifebecomesanobjectofknowledgeandagovernable

domainwithinFuturICT.Thisinvolvesquestionsregardingthewaylifeis

renderedcomputableandtowhatextentitisthusinstrumentalised;how

6

boundariesbetweennatureandsocietyareredrawnwithintheprojectproposal;

towhatextentthenaturalisationofanobjectofknowledgeresonateswitha

progressnarrativepromisingmasteryovernaturethroughobjectiveknowledge;

andwhatpoliticalconsequencesmightfollowfromthisefforttosimulatelifeon

Earth.

Life,however,isnotanunproblematicconcept;neitherisbiopower.Inthe

followingchapter,Iwilltrytoarriveatanunderstandingofbiopowerwhich

registersthatthismodalityofpowerpertainsnotonlytothegovernmentof

livingbeings,butalsoincorporatesaspecificknowledgeofbiologicallifeintoa

generaleconomyofpower.Inthissense,biopowerdenotesacertainbecoming‐

vitalofthesocial.Theunderlyingconceptoflifeinformingthenotionof

biopowerwillbetracedthroughreadingsofbothGeorgesCanguilhemand

MichelFoucault.However,iflifeisahistoricallycontingentproductofbiological

discourse,towhatextentneedwereconsiderourunderstandingofbiopowerin

lightofrecenttransformationsofthediscourseonlife?Iwillattempta

provisionalanswerbyreconstructingtheinfluenceofcyberneticsand

complexitytheoriesonthereconceptualisationofvital,social,andtechnological

systemsasessentiallyanalogouscomplex,ifnotliving,entities.

Investigatingthemutualsupportofsystemsofknowledgeandtechnologiesof

power,mymethodology(chapterthree)isinformedbyreadingsofFoucault’s

notionofcritiqueaswellasDonnaHaraway’sunderstandingofthe

technosciencesasaculturalpracticewhichfocusesattentiononthepower

dimensionthatisatstakeintheconstructionofboundariesbetweennatureand

culture.

7

Inchapterfour,Iwillexaminethewaysinwhichlifeisatstakeinthedomainof

knowledgeandpowerthatFuturICTcircumscribes.Lifefiguresthreefoldin

FuturICT:asthedomaintobesimulatedandgoverned,asinformingthespecific

methodologyofsimulationitself,andasaresourceforbiomimetictechnologies

forgoverningnaturalisedsocialsystems.SituatingFuturICTinanongoing

debateabouttheemergenceofbigdatatechnologies,Iwillproceedtoexamine

howthesimulationofemergentsocialstructuresproposedinFuturICT

intersectswithartificialliferesearch,anddiscusssharedstrategiesfor

naturalisinganobjectofknowledgeandthusauthorisingtheproductionof

mattersoffact.DrawingonDonnaHaraway’scallforsituatedknowledges,Iwill

thenexaminehowthesestrategiesofobjectiveknowledge‐makingresonatewith

afantasyofomnisciencepermeatingthetechnosciences,andregistercritical

voiceswithincomplexitydiscoursewhichmightproblematisetheunderlying

epistemologyofFuturICT.TheinitiatorsoftheFuturICTproposalunderscorethe

project’svitalnecessitybyimaginingaworldoutofcontrol,whichneedstobe

masteredbyscienceandtechnology.Analysingthevisualandtextualnarrative

ofFuturICT,Iwillarguethataprogressnarrativetappingintoagendered

imaginaryofnatureisstrategicallydeployedinordertosecuretheacceptanceof

technicalsolutionsforsocialandpoliticalproblems.Thesesolutionsregister

socialsystemsascomplex,ifnotlivingentitieswhicharetobegovernedby

applyingmechanismsauthorisedbybiologicaldiscourses.However,Iwillargue

thatnaturalisingthesocialasacomplex,livingsystemnarrowsthespacefor

politicalcontestationandmightservetoprivilegethegivenorderoverprojects

oftransformation.

8

Concludinginchapterfivewithadiscussionofthecontinuitiesanddifferencesof

knowledgesoflifeandthebiopoliticaltechniquesunderlyingthespecific

articulationofbiopowerinFuturICT,Iwilldrawattentiontothewaysinwhich

life’sspecificityasanobjectofknowledgemighthelptoresisttotalising

epistemologiesandenableethicopoliticalprojectsoftransformation,insteadof

instrumentalisingknowledgeoflifeforthegovernmentoflivingbeings.

9

2. Literature review: the social and the vital

2.1 Biopower at the threshold of modernity

Foucaultexplicitlymentionstheconceptofbiopowerintheconcludinglectureof

hislectureseriesSocietyMustBeDefendedattheCollègedeFrancefrom17

March1976(Foucault,2004)andinthelastchapterofTheHistoryofSexuality

Vol.Ifrom1976(Foucault,2008).Lateron,Foucaultwoulddeveloptheconcept

ofbiopowerfurtherinhislecturesonSecurity,Territory,PopulationandThe

BirthofBiopoliticsfrom1977to1978(Foucault,2007;2008a).Allofthese

analysesbringonespecificperiodoftimetothefore;orrather,thetransition

betweentwoperiods.Boththeformationofthesexualitydispositifandthe

rationalitiesanddiscourseofmoderngovernmentalityhappenedatthe

thresholdbetweenwhatFoucaulttermedtheclassicalageandthemodernagein

Europe,betweenthe18thandthe19thcentury.Thisperiodwitnesseddecisive

changesintheepistemicorder,leadingtotheformationofnewknowledgesand

methodsofenquiry,athemeFoucaultexploredinhisearlierworkTheOrderof

Things(Foucault,2002).Whatismore,betweenthe18thand19thcenturya

differentconfigurationofrationalities,techniquesandinstitutionsofpower

begantoemergeinconjunctionwithnewwaysofknowing,amodalityofpower

whichFoucaultwouldcallbiopower.

Foucaultdistinguishesbetweenthreemodalitiesofpowerwhichareeach

characterisedbyspecificrationalities,techniques,andobjects.However,thisis

nottosaythatthesemodalitiesconstitutedifferenthistoricalperiodsordisplace

eachother.Ratherthanthat,theycharacteriseaprevailingrationalitywhich

organisestherelationbetweendifferenttechniquesandreferentsofpower

10

(Foucault,2007:8).Thesovereignpowerofthepre‐classicalageischaracterised

asa“righttoseizure“(Foucault,2008:136)centeredaroundthefigureofthe

sovereignruler.However,atthethresholdbetweentheclassicalageandthe

modernage,theformationofanewregimeofpowertakesplacethatbecomes

productiveratherthansubtractive,apower

toincite,reinforce,control,monitor,optimise,andorganisetheforcesunderit:a

powerbentongeneratingforces,makingthemgrowandorderingthem,rather

thanonededicatedtoimpedingthem,makingthemsubmit,ordestroyingthem

(Foucault,2008:136).

Consequently,the19thcenturyseesthedevelopmentofamoraldiscourseon

povertyandonhealth,andatthesametimethedevelopmentofdisciplinary

institutionssuchastheschoolandtheprison.Withintheseinstitutionsandtheir

discourses,an“anatomo‐politics“(Foucault,2008:139)emergesthatisdirected

attheindividualhumanbody,discipliningitsunrulyforcesandthereby

producingthedocilebody,trainedtobeproductivelyintegratedintothe

machine‐likeinstitutionsoffactoryandarmy(Foucault,1991).However,from

the19thcenturyonwards,disciplinarypowerisgraduallysupplementedbya

newmodalityofpowerthatoperatesaccordingtoadifferentrationality,namely

biopower.Theprescriptionofarigidnormativeidealcodedwithintheforbidden

andtheobligatorytypicalofdisciplinarypowerisdisplacedbyanorientation

towardsdescribingandinfluencingempiricallyoccurringregularities:

11

Disciplineworksinanempty,artificialspacethatistobecompletely

constructed.Security1willrelyonanumberofmaterialgivens...Itissimplya

matterofmaximisingthepositiveelements,forwhichoneprovidesthebest

possiblecirculation,andofminimisingwhatisriskyandinconvenient(Foucault,

2007:19)

Moreover,contrarytodisciplinarypower,whichisdirectedattheindividual

body,biopowerisconcernedwithgoverningphenomenaobservableonan

aggregatelevel.IanHackingnoteshowtheearly19thcenturywitnessedan

“avalancheofprintednumbers“(Hacking,1982:281),thatis,averitable

inflationofpracticesofmeasuring,countingandnumericallyrecordingsocial

phenomena.Hence,newformsofsocialmeasuregaverisetothenormasan

empiricallygivendistributionofeventswhichallowsforsomedeviationwithin

parametersdescribableintermsofprobability.Nolongerwasthecausalityof

eventssuchasscarcity,crime,andsicknessexplainedcosmologicallyas

determinedbyfortune,God’swill,orMan’sevilnature,butratherinsertedintoa

spaceofprobabilitygovernedbyquasi‐naturallaws(Foucault,2007:47).

Henceforth,biopowerstrivestogovern“aleatoryeventsthatoccurwithina

populationthatexistsoveraperiodoftime“(Foucault,2004:246).Thethen‐

newnotionofthepopulationcametoguidegovernmentalintervention,which

employedtechniquesofstatisticalmeasurementtogainknowledgeof“births

andmortality,thelevelofhealth,lifeexpectancyandlongevity,withallthe

conditionsthatcancausethesetovary“onthescaleofthepopulation(Foucault,

2008:139).Thisorientationtowardsaregulationof“biologicalor1Security,here,standsmetonymicallyforbiopowerbecausethesecurityapparatus,aswillbeexplainedlater,isoneofitsdefiningmechanisms.

12

biosociologicalprocessescharacteristicofhumanmasses“(Foucault,2004:250)

entailedaspecificknowledgeoflife,fromwhichthenotionofthepopulationand

itscharacteristicdynamicscouldemerge.Itispreciselyatthispointofthe“entry

oflifeintohistory,thatis,theentryofphenomenapeculiartothelifeofthe

humanspeciesintotheorderofknowledgeandpower“(Foucault,2008:142)

thatFoucaultsituatesthe“thresholdofmodernity“(Foucault,2008:143)andthe

beginningofbiopower.

2.2 Knowing life

Whatisatstakeinbiopowerisnotexclusivelybodilylifebutanotionoflife

whichisinextricablyentangledwithascientificunderstandingoflifethat

emergedwiththemoderndisciplineofbiology.2InTheOrderofThings,Foucault

(2002)examinesaruptureintheepistemicorderbetweentheclassicalandthe

modernage.Contrarytoasmoothprogressionofknowledge,Foucaultobserves

arathersuddenchangeintheconditionsofknowingbetweenthe18thand19th

centurywhichleadtothedevelopmentofthehumansciencesandthehuman2Theconceptofbiopowerhasledtoavarietyofproductiveinterpretations.Forinstance,AntonioNegriandMichaelHardt(2000)interpretbiopowerinlightofan

autonomistMarxisttheoretisationofproductivecapacitiesdisseminatedwithina

populationandactualisedasimmateriallabourinpost‐Fordistcapitalistrelationsof

production.GiorgioAgamben(1998)arguesthattheexclusionofbarelife,whichcanbe

killed,fromthequalifiedlifeofthecitizenryisthefoundinggestureofsovereignpower.

Agamben’sconceptofbarelifehasbeencriticisedastranshistorical,neglectingthe

historicalcontingencyofknowledgesoflifewhichFoucaultemphasised(Muhle,2007:

41‐42).Foranoverviewanddiscussionoftheseandotherapproachestobiopowerand

biopoliticsseeLemke(2011).However,thefocusofthisthesisisonlifeasahistorically

contingentreferentofknowledgeandpower.

13

subjectasthecenterofknowledge.Specifically,Foucaultobservesparallel

developmentsinlinguistics,economics,andbiologywhichobtainednewobjects

ofenquiry–language,labour,life–andwereformedasscientificdisciplinesin

themodernsense.Thelatterdisciplineisofimmediateinteresthere.Inthe

classicalage,Foucaultargues,biologyasthescienceoflifeandlivingbeingsdid

notexist,nordidthenotionofbiologicallife:

Allthatexistedwaslivingbeings,whichwereviewedthroughagridof

knowledgeconstitutedbynaturalhistory(Foucault,2002:139).

Thenaturalhistoriansoftheclassicalagewerepreoccupiedwiththe

classificationandtaxonomyoflivingbeings,mainlyinthefieldofbotany.Natural

historyorganisedafieldofvisibilityandsoughttoclosethegapbetweenwhatis

systematicallyobservableanddescribablebyanorientationtowardsthevisible

structureofnaturalbeings(Foucault,2002:144).Bymeansofdescriptionofa

setofvisibledifferences,naturalhistorysoughttoinscribethemultiplicityof

livingbeingsintoauniversalgridorganisedbydifferencesinstructure

(Foucault,2002:149).

However,subsequentlyanorientationtowardstheorganismanditsfunctionsin

relationtothemilieuenabledthenotionoflifetoemerge.Organicstructurewas

nolongerregardedintermsoffrequencyandsimilitudeofappearanceasa

meansoforganisingagridofdifferences,butcametobeexplainedaccordingto

itsfunctiontoperpetuatetheorganism’sexistence:

Theanalysisoforganisms,andthepossibilityofresemblancesanddistinctions

betweenthem,presupposes,therefore,atable,notoftheelements,whichmay

varyfromspeciestospecies,butofthefunctions,which,inlivingbeingsin

14

general,govern,complement,andorderoneanother:notapolygonofpossible

modifications,butahierarchicalpyramidofimportance(Foucault,2002:290)

Classification,then,nolongerconcernedvisibledifferenceswithinanorderof

representation,butfunctionalsimilaritiesofvitalorganswhichwerehiddenin

thedepthsoftheorganismandwouldbecomeobservableonlythroughmethods

ofcomparativeanatomyandsyntheticreasoning.Hence,biologicalenquirycame

tobecenteredonthesimilarwaysorganicentitiesorganisetheirpurpose‐that

is,howtheylive‐throughtheinterdependentworkingsoftheirfunctional

structures.Itisthroughthisdecisivechangeinthewayofsystematically

knowinglivingbeings–fromorderedrepresentationtofunctionalexplanation–

thatlifeitselfasanobjectofknowledgewouldemerge.Lifebecamethatwhich

thelivingbeingwasstructuredfor,andatthesametimethatwhichtranscended

theindividuallivingbeing,whichprecededtheorganismandorganisedits

internalstructureaswellasitsrelationtootherorganismsandtheenvironment:

Livingbeings,becausetheyarealive,cannolongerformatissueofprogressive

andgraduateddifferences;theymustgroupthemselvesaroundnucleiof

coherencewhicharetotallydistinctfromoneanother,andwhicharelikeso

manydifferentplansforthemaintenanceoflife...lifewithdrawsintotheenigma

ofaforceinaccessibleinitsessence,apprehendableonlyintheeffortsitmakes

hereandtheretomanifestandmaintainitself(Foucault,2002:297).

InKnowledgeofLife,GeorgeCanguilhem(2008)developsanunderstandingof

thiselusivecharacteristicofthenotionoflifeviaanexaminationofthethemesof

15

vitalismandmechanism.3Attemptstoreducetheorganismtoamechanism

cannotaccountforthecauseoftheorganism’sdynamicwithoutresortingto

eitherdivinewill,oraman‐mademachineasamodelofcomparison.Thelatter

presupposestheerasureofthelivingsourceofenergythatanimatesthe

machineinordertofunctionasananalogy(Canguilhem,2008:87).However,

withintheorganism“oneobservesphenomenaofself‐construction,self‐

conservation,self‐regulation,andself‐repair”(Canguilhem,2008:88).

Moreover,themechanistanalogyneglectsthefactthatorganiclifebehaves

differentlyfrommechanismsthatarerationallyplannedandconstructed.

Mechanistanalogiesassignorgansapurposefulnessthatistroubledbyempirical

observation,becausetheorganism“haslesspurposeandmorepotentialities“

(Canguilhem,2008:90).Contrarytothemachine’spre‐plannedfunctionality,life

is“experience,thatistosay,improvisation,theutilisationofoccurences;itisan

attemptinalldirections“(Canguilhem,2008:90).Farfrombeingstatic,

organismsconstantlyproducevariations,irregularities,differences:inshort,

anomalies.However,theiranomalycanonlybedeterminedinrelationtothe

successofthelivingbeinginperpetuatingitsexistenceunderchanging

conditions.Canguilhemarguesthatthereisnostablenormalcypropertolife,but

thatitshouldinsteadbeapproachedasan

3VitalismisoftenassociatedwithphilosopherHenriBergson(1998)andhispostulationofavitalforce.WhilethereexistsacertainsimilaritybetweenBergson's

vitalforceandCanguilhem'snotionofvitalnormativity,thefocusherewillbeonthe

latter,sincethevitalforcedoesnotproducenorms,anditwillbearguedthatthenotion

ofvitalnormativityinfluencedFoucault'sunderstandingofbiopoliticalnormalisation

(Muhle,2007:106).

16

organisationofforcesandahierarchyoffunctionswhosestabilityisnecessarily

precarious,foritisthesolutiontoaproblemofequilibrium,compensation,and

compromisebetweendifferentandcompetingpowers...irregularityand

anomalyareconceivednotasaccidentsaffectinganindividualbutasitsvery

existence(Canguilhem,2008:125).

Inthecontextoflife'sperpetualvariability,Canguilhem(1994:335)maintains

thatthedifferentiationbetweenthenormalandthepathologicalstateofthe

organismcannotbereducedtothedescriptionofquantitativedifferenceswithin

thefunctioningoforganicprocessesbecausethepathologicalstateisboth

continuouswiththenormalstate,inthatthenormalfunctionoforganic

processesisexaggeratedordiminished,yetalsodiscontinuousonthelevelofthe

organictotalityinitsrelationwiththeenvironment.Essentially,thenormalin

thecontextoftheorganismcannotbeanexternalpositingintermsofstatistical

measurementbutshouldbeunderstoodasakindofvalue‐ladenjudgement

madebythelivingorganismitselfwhichisnotindifferenttoitsconditionsof

existence(Canguilhem,1994:339).Ontheaggregatelevelofthespecies,life

constantlyproducesvariations,andwhichofthesevariationsturnsouttobe

normalorpathologicalisaquestionnotofthestatisticaldistributionoforganic

featuresbutoflife'sabilitytoperpetuateitselfthroughvariationwithinchanging

environments.Normallife,inthissense,isnormativelife,alifeableto

dynamicallysetitsownnorms:

Thereisnofactthatisnormalorpathologicalinitself.Ananomalyormutation

isnotinitselfpathological.Thesetwoexpressotherpossiblenormsoflife.If

thesenormsareinferiortospecificearliernormsintermsofstability,fecundity,

orvariabilityoflife,theywillbecalledpathological.Ifthesenormsinthesame

17

environmentshouldturnouttobeequivalent,orinanotherenvironment,

superior,theywillbecallednormal.Theirnormalitywillcometothemfrom

theirnormativity(Canguilhem,1994:354).

Inthiscontext,Canguilhemnotesacertainfunctionalmimesisofvitalandsocial

normalisation.Bothlifeandthesocialareobjectsofnormalisingprocesses,

however,thecrucialdifferenceliesintherespectiveimmanenceorexternalityof

vitalorsocialnorms.Whereasthenormsgoverningthesocial“mustbe

represented,learned,remembered,applied“,withintheorganism“therulesfor

adjustingthepartsamongthemselvesareimmanent,presentedwithoutbeing

represented,actingwithneitherdeliberationnorcalculation”(Canguilhem,

1994:376).

2.3 Regulating life

MariaMuhle(2007)arguesthatCanguilhem’sunderstandingoflife’svital

normativityinformsFoucault’snotionofbiopower.Therelationbetweenvital

normativityandbiopoliticalregulationisoneoffunctionalmimesis;whereas

vitalnormativityisguidedbyanintrinsicvalueoflife‐itsownperpetuationand

maximisation‐thebiopoliticalnormissecuredbyexternalapparatuses,andthe

valuewhichdirectstheirapplication‐fosteringtheproductivepotentialofthe

population‐issociallyconstructed.Thus,intheconceptofbiopoliticsthe

internaldynamicofvitalnormativityistransposedintotheexternalityof

biopoliticalnormalisation(Muhle,2007:232).Contrarytodiscipline,biopolitical

normalisationdoesnotpositanidealnormwhichissubsequentlytrainedinto

18

theindividualsubject4butratherregistersdifferentdistributionsofphenomena

withindifferentsegmentsofthepopulationthroughtheapplicationofstatistics.

Theseempiricallyoccurringdifferentialnormsarethenrelatedtoeachother

and,subsequently,biopoliticalregulationseeksto“bringthemostunfavourable

inlinewiththemostfavourable“(Foucault,2007:63).Hence,thebiopolitical

“normisaninterplayofdifferentialnormalities“(Foucault,2007:63)withina

multiplicityofindividualsunderstoodasalivingpopulationthatbringsforthits

ownnorms.

Inthissense,thesocialisnotsimplyunderstoodasanalogoustoanorganism.

Ratherthanthat,aspecificunderstandingofthedynamicdevelopmentoflifeis

incorporatedintotherationalityandtechnologiesofpowerwhichnowactupon

aggregatephenomenabyinfluencingthemilieuwithinwhichthepopulation

developsthesephenomena.Thesetechnologiesallowfordeviationtoacertain

extent,andarefuture‐orientedinthesenseofsecuringthehomeostasisofthe

social.Inshort,thebiosinbiopowercanbereadassignifyingthatnotonlydoes

lifebecomethereferentofpowerbutalsothat“thesocialderivesitsfunctional

modelfromthevital“(Muhle,2007:233;author’stranslation).

Consequently,thesecurityapparatusastheparadigmatictechniqueofbiopower

registersthepopulationasalivingentitysubjecttoquasi‐naturalregularities

andprocesses,andseekstoregulatetheseprocessesbyinterveningonthe

conditionswithinwhichtheyoccur.Thepopulation,then,nolongerappearsasa

multiplicityofsubjectsbut“asasetofprocessestobemanagedattheleveland

4Infact,thisstaticsubsumptionunderanexternalnormwouldbepathologicalinCanguilhem’ssenseoftheterm.

19

onthebasisofwhatisnaturalintheseprocesses“(Foucault,2007:70).Foucault

discussesthesignificanceoftheemergenceofthepopulationinthecontextof

thenotionofmilieu:

Themilieuisasetofnaturalgivens...andasetofartificialgivens...acertain

numberofcombined,overalleffectsbearingonallwholiveinit.Itisanelement

inwhichacircularlinkisproducedbetweeneffectsandcauses,sinceaneffect

fromonepointofviewwillbeacausefromanother(Foucault,2007:21)

FoucaultsituatestheemergenceofthenotionofmilieubothinNewtonian

physicsandLamarckianbiology(Foucault,2007:20).AsCanguilhem(2008)

elaborates,themilieuisaconceptwithwhichthelivingorganism’sspecific

situatednessintheenvironmentcametobeexplained,andwhichunderwent

varioussemantictransformations.Fromanetherealfluidassumedtoexplainthe

problemofactionfromadistanceinNewtonianphysics,themilieulatercameto

beknowninbiologyasaconcepttoaccountforthecausalrelationbetween

organicchangeandphysicalenvironment.Forinstance,inLamarckitisthe

organism’sneedwhichmediatestheenvironment’sinfluenceontheorganism’s

evolution.InDarwin,thereexistsaprimarymilieuwhichisthatofthe“relation

ofonelivingbeingtoothers“(Canguilhem,2008:105)andwhichprecedesthe

geographicalmilieuinitsfunctionofselection.Throughoutitsvarious

permutations,themilieufiguredinearlybiologicaldiscourseasthesumof

environmentalcircumstanceswhichexertaninfluenceuponthedevelopmentof

life.ForFoucault,then,throughactinguponthemilieuwithinwhich“artifice

functionsasanatureinrelationtoapopulationthat,whilebeingwovenfrom

socialandpoliticalrelations,alsofunctionsasaspecies“(Foucault,2007:22)the

populationasanentitysubjecttothecharacteristicsoflifeisbothproducedand

20

governedbythesecurityapparatus.InasimilarsenseinwhichDarwinist

biologyunderstandsthepopulationas“theelementthroughwhichthemilieu

producesitseffectsontheorganism“(Foucault,2007:78)thebiopolitical

interventiononthelevelofthemilieusignifiestheentryofspecies‐lifeintothe

techniquesofgovernment:

Themilieuappearsasafieldofinterventioninwhich,insteadofaffecting

individuals...onetriestoaffect,precisely,apopulation.Imeanamultiplicityof

individualswhoareandfundamentallyandessentiallyonlyexistbiologically

boundtothematerialitywithinwhichtheylive(Foucault,2007:21)

Foucaultarguesthatthisinterventionofthesecurityapparatusconsistsof

organisingsystemsofcirculationswithinthepopulation.Intheexamplesof

town,scarcity,andepidemicsthatFoucaultdiscusses,securityisawayof

allowingcirculationstotakeplace,ofcontrollingthem,siftingthegoodandthe

bad,ensuringthatthingsarealwaysinmovement,constantlymovingaround,

continuouslygoingfromonepointtoanother,butinsuchawaythatthe

inherentdangersofthiscirculationarecancelledout(Foucault.2007:65).

Thesecurityapparatus’workofenablingpositivecirculationstiesintoan

emergingknowledgeofcontrolcircuits.Foucaultdiscussestheemerging

politico‐economicrationalityofthePhysiocratsasparadigmaticforthe

functioningofthesecurityapparatus.Confrontedwithrecurringcatastrophic

foodscarcities,theirpoliciesoflaissez­faireconsistedinremovingpricecontrols,

prohibitionsofhoarding,andotherbarrierstofreetradeandtherefore

establishingwhatcouldbedescribedasnegativefeedbackmechanismsante

litteramwhichweremeanttostabilisethemarketinastateofhomeostasis

21

(Foucault,2007:37).Inthissense,bothinspatialplanning,economics,and

medicine,thesecurityapparatusworksto

establishanequilibrium,maintainanaverage,establishasortofhomeostasis,

andcompensateforvariationswithinthisgeneralpopulationanditsaleatory

field(Foucault,2004:241)

ItisnocoincidencethatFoucaultframesthefunctionalityofthesecurity

apparatusintermsalludingtotheterminologyofcybernetics.AsJosephVogl

(2004)notes,thenotionsofself‐regulationandcircularcausalityemergedin

theirearlyformswithindifferentfieldsofknowledgepreciselyatthesametime

forwhichFoucaultdescribestheemergenceofbiopower.Forinstance,in

Malthus’writingsonthepopulation,thecausalrelationbetweenpopulationsize,

wagesandfoodproductionleadstoself‐regulatingcyclesofpopulationgrowth,

foodpricesandwagelevels.Similarly,thecentrifugalgovernorinventedby

JamesWattin1788regulatesthespeedofthesteammachinewithanegative

feedbackmechanism(Vogl,2004:74‐77).OttoMayr(1986)arguesthat

equilibriumandbalanceasleadingmetaphorsofhistoricalliberalismeventually

evolvedintoconceptssuchasself‐regulationandfeedbackcontrol.Clearly

resonatingwiththeideaofaninvisiblehandorganisingequilibriumwithout

centralcommandstructures,technicalfeedbackmechanismsgainedprominence

andwidespreadapplicationatthesametimeasliberalpoliticaleconomy

betweenthe18thand19thcentury,eventhoughsuchmechanismshadbeen

knownsinceantiquity(Mayr,1986:xvi).Hence,acrossdifferentfieldsof

knowledge–fromengineeringtopoliticaleconomy‐apre‐cybernetic

understandingofcircularcausalityandself‐regulatoryprocessesemergedthat

22

troubledlinearmechanisticcausality,andledtoaturntowardstheliving

organismasamodelforunderstandingprocessesobservedelsewhere:

Assuch,theorganismisnotapoliticalmetaphor.Thatthenotionofthe

organismwasinsuchgreatdemandisduetoitsbeingananswertothequestion

ofhowtoarriveatasystematiccoincidenceofdynamicprocessesandstable

structures...Hence,around1800apoliticalmodelofregulationemergedin

whichthegovernmentalknowledgeofEnlightenmentandtheprinciplesof

indirectgoverningtransformedthemselvesintotheobservationofcontrol

circuitsandself‐regulatoryprocesses(Vogl,2004:78;author’stranslation)

Insummary,biopowerneedstobeunderstoodinthecontextofanepistemein

whichlifeisatstakeasanobjectofknowledge,signifyingphenomenaof

normalisation,self‐regulation,andhomeostasis.Biopower,then,referstothelife

ofpopulationsnotonlybytakinglifeasitsobjectbutalsobyincorporatinga

specificknowledgeofthedynamicsofbiologicallifeintoitsbiopolitical

mechanisms,thusactingupontheconditionswithinwhichapopulationexistsin

ordertosecureastateofhomeostaticequilibrium.

2.4 Cyborg life

AsSarahFranklin(2000)notes,thegeneticisationofbiologyinthe20thcentury

eventuallybroughtforthareductionistparadigmwhereinlifewouldfigureas

unambiguousinformationalprocessesembodiedinthegeneticcode,thusgiving

waytoitsinstrumentalisation:

naturebecomesbiologybecomesgenetics,throughwhichlifeitselfbecomes

reprogrammableinformation(Franklin,2000:190)

23

LilyKay(2000)attributesthisreconceptualisationofthefundamentalprocesses

oflifeintermsofinformationtothegrowinginfluenceofcyberneticsasameta‐

scienceduringandaftertheSecondWorldWar.Themathematicaltheoryof

informationandsystemsthinking,togetherwiththepracticesofelectronic

computing,servedtocreatearepresentationalspaceinwhichthegeneticcode

wouldfigureas“thesiteoflife’scommandandcontrol“(Kay,2000:5).Although

notunproblematicallyandnotwithoutcontestation,biologistseventually

adoptedthemetaphorsandmethodsofinformationdiscourseandstarted

representinggeneticprocessesasgoal‐directedcomputerprograms,and

organismsasself‐regulatingcommunicationnetworksorcyberneticsystems

(Kay,2000:17).Clearly,thisuptakeofinformationalmetaphorsinbiologywas

helpedbyeminentcyberneticianNorbertWiener’sfunctionalanalogyofliving

entitiesandcertainmachinesasbothentropy‐resistingformsoforganisation

governedbyfeedbackmechanisms(Wiener,1989:26).However,Kaycarefully

distinguishesbetweeninformationtheoryandinformationdiscourse,thelatter

beingunderstoodasa“large‐scalescientificandculturalshiftinrepresentation“

(Kay,2000:16)affectingnotonlythelifesciencesbutalsosociologicalandother

discourses.Whereasapplicationsofthemathematicaltheoryofinformationand

systemicmodelsinbiologyoftenencounteredseriousconceptualandpractical

limitations,theinformationalmetaphorneverthelessfacilitatedproductive

interactionsbetweendifferentfieldsofknowledgeandthusorganisedasystem

ofrepresentationthateventuallyrecastvitalprocessesintermsof“information,

texts,codes,cyberneticsystems,programs,instructions,alphabets,words“(Kay,

2000:26).Thisnewlyinformationalisedknowledgeoflifetiedintoawiderpost‐

wardiscourseon“automatedcommunicationsystemsasawayof

24

conceptualisingandmanagingnatureandsociety“(Kay,2000:127).Cybernetics

meshedbiologicalmeaning‐makingwithaspecificnexusofknowledgeand

powerpertinenttothesocialwherein

controlwasabstractedanddiffused:itwasnotathingbutamanifestation;nota

modeofdecisionbutaprocesspervadingthewholesystem...controlsystems

wasredefiningthemeaningofsocialandbiologicalphenomena(Kay,2000:85‐

6;emphasisadded)

RichardDoyle(1997)highlightstheelisionoftheembodiedorganismwithinthis

shiftfromthemodernistbiologicalparadigmdescribedbyFoucaultand

Canguilhemtowardsapostvitalparadigmthatrestsupontheinformational

metaphorofthegeneticcode.Life,then,wouldnolongerfigureasthe

“subterraneanwarmththatcirculates“(Foucault,2002:138)betweenliving

things;rather,itselusivecharacterwastobefinallyreducedto,aswellas

resolvedin,attemptstowardscompletedescriptionsofinformationstoredin

geneticcodes.Hence,thelivingorganismwhose‘interest’initsconditionsof

existencestillfiguredasthedrivingforceofvitalnormativityinCanguilhem’s

writings“isnothingbutcoding“(Doyle,1997:17).

Thisdestabilisationoftheboundarybetweenbiologyandinformation

technology,natureandculture,leadsDonnaHaraway(1990)tocallforacyborg

politics.ForHaraway,thefigureofthecyborgservestointerveneinasocial

realitywhere“couplingsbetweenmachineandorganism,eachconceivedas

codeddevices“(1990:191)entailareconsiderationofbiopoliticswithin

technologicallymediatedsocieties:

25

Ourdominationsdon’tworkbymedicalisationandnormalisationanymore,they

workbynetworking,communicationsredesign,stressmanagement.

Normalisationgiveswaytoautomation...thediscourseofbiopoliticsgivesway

totechnobabble(Haraway,1990:194)

Astheboundarybetweenmachineandorganismhasbeenmadeirrevocably

ambiguous,thefigureofthecyborgfocusesattentiononanew“informaticsof

domination“(Haraway,1990:203)whereinthestrategiesofpowerareno

longerbasedonthe“integrityofnaturalobjects“(Haraway,1990:204)but

ratherregulateflowsacrosssystemsofcommunication.

2.5 Vital complexity

NikolasRose(2007)maintainsthattheresultsofthesequencingofthehuman

genomeattheturnofthemillenniummarkedalimitationoftheinformational

metaphor,andeventuallyledtoamoveawayfromthelineardeterminist

paradigmof20thcenturygeneticstowardsacontemporarypostgenomic

understandingoflife.Thepropositionthat“life‐as‐information“hasreplaced

“lifeasorganicunity“(Rose,2007:45)nolongerholds,Roseargues,ratherthan

thatcontemporarymolecularbiologyisshiftingfromgeneticreductionism

shapedbyadoctrineofone‐wayflowofinformation(fromDNAtoRNAto

protein)towardsa

postgenomicemphasisoncomplexities,interactions,developmentalsequences,

andcascadesofregulationinteractingbackandforthatvariouspointsinthe

metabolicpathwaysthatleadtothesynthesisofenzymesandproteins.Andin

theprocessinformationalepistemologiesseemtohavereachedtheirlimit;they

26

cannolongercapturewhatresearchersdoastheyrepresentandintervenein

thevitalcomplexitiesthatconstitutelifeatamolecularlevel(Rose,2007:47)

Yetthisisnottosaythatcybernetics’influenceonthediscourseofbiologyhas

vanished.Rose(2007:48)maintainsthatsimulationtechniquesandsystemic

metaphorsderivedfromcyberneticsenablecontemporaryexplanationsinthe

lifesciencesthatstressthenon‐deterministic,complexnatureoflivingsystems.

Theheavilycomputer‐dependentmodellingapproachesofsystemsbiology

whichseektounderstandemergentpropertiesoflivingsystems,then,canbe

understoodasparadigmaticfortheconstructionofpostgenomicknowledgesof

lifethatarenolongerrootedintheorganismbutturntowards“simulationsof

dynamic,complex,opensystems“inorderto“predictfuturevitalstatesand

hencetoenableinterventionintothosevitalsystemstoreshapethosefutures“

(Rose,2007:16).Rosearguesthatundertheemergentregimeofbiopower,vital

normativity“onceconsideredtobeinscribedintothelawsoforganiclife“(Rose,

2007:81)losesitsprecedence.Representedinsimulations,lifeatthemolecular

levelisthoroughlyopeneduptomanipulation,andcontemporarybiopolitics

seekto“bringapotentialunwantedfutureintothepresentandmakeit

calculable“(Rose,2007:86).5

Hence,complexityframeworksareinfluencingtheconstitutionofcontemporary

knowledgesoflife.Ratherthanaunifiedandhomogeneoustheory,complexity

denotesasetofinterdisciplinaryscientificapproachesandconcernswithshared

rootsincyberneticsandsystemstheory,whichseektodescribeandunderstand

5However,Rosemaintainsanunderstandingofbiopoliticsthatpertainsprimarilytothesomaticandmentionsthisrationalityinthecontextofthenotionofsusceptibilityin

genomicmedicine(Rose,2007:86).

27

thecommonpropertiesofcomplexsystemsfoundacrossphysics,biology,

economics,sociologyandotherfields.InthewordsofMelanieMitchell,professor

atthecomplexityresearchcentreSantaFeInstitute,acomplexsystemcanbe

broadlyunderstoodas

asysteminwhichlargenetworksofcomponentswithnocentralcontroland

simplerulesofoperationgiverisetocomplexcollectivebehaviour,sophisticated

informationprocessing,andadaptationvialearningorevolution...asystemthat

exhibitsnontrivialemergentandself‐organisingbehaviours(Mitchell,2009:13)

Self‐organisationdescribeshow“organisedbehaviourariseswithoutaninternal

orexternalcontroller“(Mitchell,2009:13)withincomplexsystems,andis

observedwithinorganismsandpopulationsbutalsousedtoexplainphysical,

social,andtechnicalstructures.Closelyrelated,theterm“emergence”denotes

how“simplerulesproducecomplexbehaviourinhard‐to‐predictways“

(Mitchell,2009:13).Rejectingareductionistapproachthatwouldexplainthe

behaviourofasystemviaamorecompletedescriptionofitssinglecomponents,

researchonemergencefocusesonhowiterativeinteractionsbetweenalarge

numberofcomponentsproducepatternsoforganisationonamacroscale

(Mitchell,2009:149).Forinstance,cellularautomata,simulationsconsistingofa

gridofcellswhereeachcell’sstateisdependentonthestateofitsimmediate

neighboursaccordingtoacellupdaterule,areusedtodemonstratetheself‐

organisedemergenceofstructuralpatternsovertime.Workoncellular

automatahasauthorisedassertionsthatbiologicalprocessesneedtobe

understoodasaformofinformationprocessing,ifnotcomputation(Mitchell,

2009:157).

28

Drawingonhisworkongeneticregulatorynetworks,biologistandcomplexity

theoristStuartKauffman(1995)arguesforemergenceasthefundamentalliving

process.InKauffman’saccount,thetheoryofself‐organisationfiguresasa

candidatefora“deeptheoryofbiologicalorder“(Kauffman,1995:18)which

supplementstheevolutionaryhistoryofratheraccidentalvariationandselection

withafundamentallawinvokingacertainnecessityforlifetoexist:

Life,inthisview,isanemergentphenomenonarisingasthemoleculardiversity

ofaprebioticchemicalsystemincreasesbeyondathresholdofcomplexity.If

true,thenlifeisnotlocatedinthepropertyofanysinglemolecule‐inthedetails

‐butisacollectivepropertyofsystemsofinteractingmolecules...Life,inthis

view,isnottobelocatedinitsparts,butinthecollectiveemergentpropertiesof

thewholetheycreate(Kauffman,1995:24)

Hence,emergencedisplacesevolutionasthefundamentalprocessoftheliving:

logicallypriortovariationandselection,organisationemergesspontaneously,

andevolutionsubsequentlyselectsfavourableformsoforganisation(Kauffman,

1995:9).Kauffmaniscreditedwiththewell‐knownadage“lifeexistsattheedge

ofchaos“(Kauffman,1995:26)meaningthehypothesisthatevolutionfavours

livingsystemswhichexistinatransitorystatebetweenorderanddisorder,with

justtherightamountoforganisationtoadapttoenvironmentalperturbations.

Complexsystemsexhibitnonlineardynamics,i.e.disproportionalrelations

betweencausesandeffects:small,localfluctuationscanleadtounpredictable

changesintheorganisationoftheoverallsystemwhicheitherachievesahigher,

ordifferent,formoforganisationorslipsintodisorder.IlyaPrigogineand

IsabelleStengersmaintainthat“nonlinearreactions...arevirtuallytheruleasfar

aslivingsystemsareconcerned“(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:153).ForPrigogine

29

andStengers,thenonlineardynamicsembodiedinthecomplexinterplay

betweenautocatalytic,crosscatalytic,andinhibitoryprocessesregulating

metabolismatthemolecularlevelserveasamodelfortheoverall“functional

logicofbiologicalsystems“(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:154).Crucially,this

perspectiveentailsashiftawayfromhomeostasistowardsanotionoflifethat

stresses“theinstabilitiesthatmayoccurinfar‐from‐equilibriumconditions“6

(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:154)throughthenonlinearamplificationofminor

fluctuationsaffectingthesystem.

Furthermore,researchonscale‐freenetworks,i.e.networkswhosedistribution

ofnodesandlinksadherestoapower‐law,7hasledtotheassertionthat,in

general,evolutionfavoursthedevelopmentofscale‐freenetworksbecauseof

theirresilientproperties,i.e.theircharacteristicthatafailureofrandomnodes

doesnotthreatenthefunctionalityoftheoverallnetwork(Mitchell,2009:248).8

Withinbiology,scale‐freenetworksareunderstoodtoensuretherobustnessof

metabolicpathways,brainfunction,andgeneticregulation(Mitchell,2009:249‐

251).Acrossbiological,social,andtechnicalnetworks“many–perhapsmost–

6Withinthermodynamics,far‐from‐equilibriumsystemsaresystemswhichexchangeenergywiththeirenvironment.PrigogineandStengersmaintainthatlivingsystemsare

necessarilyfar‐from‐equilibriumsystems(Priogine/Stengers,1984:175).

7Scale‐freenetworksareconstitutedofasmallnumberofnodeswithalargenumberofedges(i.e.hubs)andalargenumberofnodeswithasmallnumberofedges.Hence,

contrarytoaGaussianornormaldistributionwherethedistributionofevents(here:

numberofnodes/numberofedges)clustersaroundameanvalueproducingabell‐

shapedgraph,apower‐lawdistributionproducesalong‐tailgraph.

8Theemphasishereisonrandom,sinceafailureofoneofthesmallnumberofnodeswithahighdegreeofedgesislessprobablethanthefailureofoneofthevastnumberof

nodeswithalowdegreeofedges.

30

real‐worldnetworksthathavebeenstudiedseemtobescale‐free;thatis,they

havepower‐lawratherthanGaussiandegreedistributions“(Mitchell,2006:

1198).

However,thespreadofcomplexitymetaphorsintobiologicalpracticesof

knowledge‐makingisnotentirelyuncontested.Forinstance,EvelynFoxKeller

doubtsthe“generalityofscale‐freenetworks“(2005:1060)asauniversal

principleofnature.Demonstratingtheeasewithwhichreal‐worldnetworkscan

berepresentedbothasadheringtoscale‐freeandotherdistributions,Keller

cautionsagainsttooquickanabstractionfromthespecificityofthephenomenon

studied,andanoverlyenthusiasticembraceofcomplexitytheoriesinbiology

(Keller,2005:1066).However,giventheexplosionofdataaboutmolecular

processes,Kellernotesthat“forthefirsttimeinrecenthistory,biologistshave

strongincentivestowelcomethecooperationofphysicalandmathematical

scientists“(Keller,2005:1067).Yetcontrarytothephysicist’surgetoposit

fundamentallaws,Kellermaintainsthat

whatisfundamentalinbiology...isfarmorelikelytobefoundintheaccidental

particularitiesofbiologicalstructurearisingearlyinevolution...thaninany

abstractorsimplelaws(Keller,2005:1067).

Moreover,inthecontextofexplainingprocessesoflifeasaformofcomputation,

Mitchellconcedesthatexactlywhatconstitutesinformationandprocessing

withinbiologicalphenomena“tendstobeill‐defined“(Mitchell,2009:169).To

her,complexityprovidesfirstandforemostacommonlanguagetofacilitate

exchangeandcollaborationacrossdisciplinaryboundaries(Mitchell,2009:252).

31

Insummary,contemporaryknowledgeoflifediffersfromtheknowledgeoflife

underlyingFocuault’shistoricalanalysisofbiopoweratthethresholdof

modernity.Thoroughlyinformationalisedandopeneduptorepresentationand

manipulationbyacomputationaltechnologyfromwhichitinsomecases

becomesdiscursivelyindistinguishable,contemporarylifeitselfisexplainedat

theintersectionofbiologyandcomplexityasemergentorganisationwithin

nonlinear,networkedsystemswhichexistattheedgeofdisorder.Thisisnotto

saythatthelifesciencesareahomogeneousdiscourse,andthatthisspecific

knowledgeoflifewouldgouncontested.However,asbothRose(2007)and

Haraway(1990)suggest,anattemptatunderstandingcontemporarybiopolitics

needstotakeintoaccountthetransformationsthattheknowledgeoflifehas

undergone.

32

3. Methodology

Consideringthatbiopowerdenotesanexusofpowerandknowledgepredicated

onlife,IwilldrawonFoucault’snotionofcritiqueinordertoinvestigatethe

mutualsupportofsystemsofknowledgeandtechnologiesofpower.Following

Foucault,critiqueisapracticeinformedbythedesire

nottobegovernedlikethat,inthenameofthoseprinciples,withsuchandsuch

anobjectiveinmindandbymeansofsuchprocedures,notlikethat,notforthat,

notbythem(Foucault,2007a:44)

Offeringacritique,then,alwaysalreadyexistsinarelationtoanestablished

regimeofpower.Yetcriticismisnotlimitedtoinvalidatingspecificpracticesof

government.Byencompassingthedescriptionandproblematisationofthevery

fieldcircumscribedbythemutualstabilisationofsystemsofknowledgeand

mechanismsofpower,withinwhichaspecificcritiquecanbearticulatedand

madeintelligible,critiquecanofferawiderperspectiveontransformation:

anexusofknowledge‐powerhastobedescribedsothatwecangraspwhat

constitutestheacceptabilityofasystem(Foucault,2007a:61)

However,inmycasestudyIwillaskhowbiopowerfigureswithinaspecific

technoscientificapparatusthathasyettomaterialise.Consideringitsemphasis

ondevelopingnewtechnologiesaswellasaimingtomanipulateandtransform

itsobjectofknowledgethroughthesetechnologies,FuturICTcanbeunderstood

asanexemplarytechnoscientificendeavourinPaulRabinow’ssenseoftheterm:

Representingandintervening,knowledgeandpower,understandingand

reform,arebuiltin,fromthestart,assimultaneousgoalsandmeans(Rabinow,

1992:236)

33

InDonnaHaraway'srenderingofthenotionoftechnoscience,thissenseofa

confluenceoftechnologyandsciencepersists,yetshestressesthe

discontinuitiesofthepresentmomentwheresomeofthedefiningbinary

dichotomiesofmodernityaredestabilised:

Technoscienceextravagantlyexceedsthedistinctionbetweenscienceand

technologyaswellasthosebetweennatureandsociety,subjectsandobjects,

andthenaturalandtheartifactualthatstructuredtheimaginarytimecalled

modernity(Haraway,1997:3‐4)

ForDonnaHaraway,acritiqueofcontemporaryscienceandtechnology

engendersunderstandingthemasculturalpracticesandthusfocusingattention

onthe“metaphors,images,narrativestrategies”(Haraway,2004:332)thatrun

throughthetechnosciences.Harawaydoesnotaffirmthedistinctionsbetween

“scienceandpolitics,orscienceandsociety,orscienceandculture”(Haraway,

1997:62).Ratherthanthat,sheseekstoavoidreductiontoeitherofthese

categoriesanddemonstratehowtheyaremutuallyimplicatedintechnoscience’s

productionof“whatwillcountasnatureandasmattersoffact”(Haraway,1997:

50).However,acknowledgingthetransformationsbroughtuponthepresent

momentbythetechnosciences,Harawaydoesnotofferapurelynegative

critique,butleveragestheculturaldimensionoftechnoscienceinordertoinvent

counter‐narrativessuchasthefigureofthecyborgthatmighthelptoimagine

differentwaysofinhabitingtheworld(Haraway,1990).Hence,understanding

FuturICTasatechnoscientificendeavourwhichisinflectedwithabiopolitical

projectofgoverninglivingbeingsyetwhichexistsatthemomentexclusivelyin

discursiveform,IadoptaFoucaultianapproachtocritique,supplementedby

DonnaHaraway’sapproachtothetechnosciencesthatfocusesattentionon

34

narrative,metaphor,andthetransformativepotentialofpolyphonyinmy

analysesofthetextualandvisualmaterialswhichmakeupandsurroundthe

FuturICTproposal.

35

4. Case study: governing life in FuturICT

4.1 FuturICT, big data and the technological zone

FuturICTisanongoingproposalforalarge‐scale,long‐termresearchproject

withintheFutureandEmergingTechnologies(FET)programmeoftheEuropean

Union.Fusingcomplexityscience,socialscience,andinformationand

communicationtechnologies,FuturICTaimstoleveragereal‐timedatafromthe

internetinordertosimulatemacrosocialprocesses,thusproviding

“probabilisticshort‐termforecastssimilartoweatherforecasts“forglobalsocial

andeconomicdevelopments(FuturICT,2012:21).LedbyprofessorsDirk

HelbingandStevenBishopofETHZürichandUCLrespectively,andinvolvinga

rangeofotherEuropeanresearchinstitutions,FuturICTwaseventuallyselected

in2011asacandidateflagshipprojectoftheFETprogrammewhichpromotes

“long‐termhigh‐riskresearch,offsetbypotentialbreakthroughswithahigh

technologicalorsocietalimpact“(EuropeanCommission,2011:6).Thus,

FuturICTiscurrentlycompetinginamulti‐stageselectionprocessforlong‐term

fundingover10yearswithabudgetofupto100millioneurosperyear

(EuropeanCommission,2011:9).ThedecisionastowhetherFuturICTwillbe

fundedbytheEuropeanUnionhasyettobemade,however,theproposalhas

alreadygeneratedconsiderableresonanceinthemedia(FuturICT,2012a).

Theprojectisrootedinthequantitativetraditionofthesocialscienceswhich

aimstomathematicallymodelsocialprocesses,particularlyinthecomputational

approach,whichheavilyreliesoncomputertechnologyinordertosimulatethe

emergenceofmacrophenomenafrominteractionsbetweenagentsatthemicro

level(Humphreys,2002:180).However,initsattempttosimulateemergent

36

organisationtheprojectalsointersectswiththescientificprogrammeand

culturaldiscourseofartificiallife(Kember,2003).

Specifically,theproposedresearchprojectconsistsofdevelopingthree

interlinkedcomponents:theLivingEarthSimulator,thePlanetaryNervous

System,andtheGlobalParticipatoryPlatform(FuturICT,2012:16).TheLiving

EarthSimulatorismeantto“enabletheexplorationoffuturescenarios“

(FuturICT,2012:18)throughtheapplicationofagent‐basedsimulationand

othermodellingmethods,servingeventuallyasa“PolicyWindTunnel“

(FuturICT,2012:14)wheredifferentpoliticaldecisionscanbetestedinadvance

regardingtheirprobableimpactonsociety.Tothiseffect,thesimulations

integratedatafromthePlanetaryNervousSystemasa“globalsensornetwork...

abletoprovidedatainreal‐timeaboutsocio‐economic,environmentalor

technologicalsystems“(FuturICT,2012:18).Finally,theGlobalParticipatory

Platformismeanttoenableparticipationofthepublicintheprojectandits

simulations,e.g.throughtakingpartin“seriousmulti‐playeronlinegames“

(FuturICT,2012:18)whichsupplementthemodels.

TheFuturICTprojectissituatedwithinanongoingdiscourseontheso‐calledbig

dataphenomenon,i.e.theincreasingavailabilityoflargeandreal‐timedatasets

aboutthebehaviourofhuman,environmentalandtechnicalsystemsduetoan

increasingdigitalmediationofsocialprocessesandthespreadofsensorand

trackingtechnologies,aswellasconsiderablegrowthincomputinganddata

analysiscapabilities.Forinstance,arecentstudybymanagementconsultancy

McKinsey(2011:17)claimsasharpincreaseindigitallystoreddatafrom50

37

exabytesin2000to300exabytes9in2007withanestimatedannualgrowthrate

projectedat40%forthenearfuture.Sincethedatainquestionarecurrently

amassedtoagreatextentbyprivateentities,andtheadvancedstorageand

analysistechniquesfiguringunderbigdataaredevelopedmainlybybusinesses

suchasGoogleandAmazon,thereisanongoingdebateaboutpossible

consequencesofthe“datadeluge“(Economist,2010)andwhetherthereisa

needforregulationregardingissuesofprivacyandaccesstoaswellas

ownershipoverdata(Bollier,2010).

Inthecontextofthisdiscourseonbigdata,anumberofsocialscientistsinitiated

adebateregardingtheneedforestablishingacomputationalsocialscience“that

leveragesthecapacitytocollectandanalyzedatawithanunprecedented

breadthanddepthandscale“(Lazeretal.,2009:3).Aimingforestablishingbig

dataresearchbeyondtheconfinesofcorporateresearchanddevelopment,the

callbroachestopicssuchasprivacyregulations,researchethics,proprietaryand

opendataandnecessaryinfrastructures,andcallsforestablishingsharednorms

andstandardsintheresearchcommunity.10Here,thenotionofthetechnological

zonedevelopedbyAndrewBarry(2006)canhelptoexplainsomedynamicsof

thegovernmentoftechnoscientificpractices.Barryunderstandsthe

technologicalzoneas“aspacewithinwhichdifferencesbetweentechnical

practices,proceduresorformshavebeenreduced,orcommonstandardshave

9Oneexabyteare1000000000gigabytesor1018bytes.

10PerhapstheinterestofLazeretal.(2009)insecuringaccesstothebehaviouraldatacurrentlyamassedneedstobeunderstoodinthecontextofbigdata’spresumed

potentialtoprovidearemedyforcomputationalsocialscience’straditionallackof

reliablereal‐worlddata(Humphreys,2002:171).

38

beenestablished“(Barry,2006:239).Strategicallyimportantforfostering

researchanddevelopmentandensuringindustrydevelopmentaswellasshared

andacceptedgovernmentalpractices,thetechnologicalzonenotonlyarticulates

asetoftechnicalpracticeswithincertainspatialboundariesbutalsopolitical,

legal,market‐orientedandmoralconsiderationsofavarietyofactors(Barry,

2006:243).

TheFuturICTproposal,then,explicitlyanswersthecallforabigdata‐oriented

computationalsocialsciencebyLazeretal.(2009)andpromisestodevelop

standards,techniquesandregulationstoconstructaframeworkforresearch

thatconsidersbothprivacyandintellectualpropertyissues,administrative

utility,andbusinessopportunitiesrelatedtobigdatawithinEurope(Bishopet

al.,2011:37).Alongsideensuringthetechnicalinteroperabilityofbigdata

research,theprojectseeksto“establishethicalstandardsincooperationswith

businessandotherpartners“(Helbingetal.,2011:169)aswellas“develop

privacy‐respectingdatamining[and]carryoutethicalresearchanddevelop

technologiesthatincreasepossibilitiesforcitizenstoparticipateinthesocial,

politicalandeconomicsystem“(Helbingetal.,2011:168).Negotiatingthe

variouspolitical,social,andeconomicforceswithwhichtheprojectisentangled

throughanemphasisonethicalandtechnologicalstandards,FuturICTcanbe

understoodastakingpartintheconstructionofaEuropeantechnologicalzone

duringthe“limitedwindowofopportunitywithinwhichsignificantdecisions

canbetaken”(Barry,2006:242),whichopenswiththeemergenceofnewand

scarcelyregulatedtechnologicalpracticessuchasthosesurroundingthemining

andanalysisofbigdata.

39

4.2 “Simulating life on Earth and everything it relates to“

AcentralcomponentoftheFuturICTprojectistheproposaltocreatea“Living

EarthSimulator“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:75),thatis,asupercomputing‐

assisted,integratedsimulationofsocial,economic,andothernestedand

interactingsystemsonaglobalscale.Inordertocreatethissimulator,Helbing

andBalietticallforatransferofmethodsandapproachesfrombothphysicsand

biologytothesocialsciences,referringtoattemptstomodelsocialphenomena

suchastraffic,evacuationscenarios,marketsandmigrationwithtechnologies

derivedfromthenaturalsciences(2011a:74‐5).Inparticular,theauthorscall

forlearningfromthosefieldsofbiologywhichareconcernedwiththe

"organizationofsocialspecies,theimmuneandneuralsystems,etc."

(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:85)whicharethebiologicalreal‐worldnetworks

commonlystudiedbycomplexityscientists(Mitchell,2009:169).Considering

thatcomplexitytheoriesprovideexplanationsforbothnaturalandsocial

phenomena,HelbingandBaliettiarguethatthetransferofsupercomputing

methodsfromthenaturalsciencestothesocialsciencesisjustamatteroftime:

Itappearslogicalthatsupercomputingwillbeultimatelymovingonfrom

applicationsinthenaturalandengineeringsciencestothesimulationofsocial

andeconomicsystems,asmoreandmorecomplexsystemsbecome

understandableandtherequireddatabecomeavailable.Itisobviousthatvirtual

three‐dimensionalworldsarewaitingtobefilledwithlife(Helbing/Balietti,

2011a:75)

ThevirtualworldoftheLivingEarthSimulatorwillbepopulatedwithartificial

agentsfromwhoserepeatedlocalinteractionssocialstructuresemergeover

40

timeatthemacrolevel.Agent‐basedmodellingisconsideredashaving

reinvigoratedmathematicalmodellinginthesocialsciences(Helbing/Balietti,

2011a:72).Withinagent‐basedmodelling,"agentscanrepresentindividuals,

groups,organizations,companiesetc."(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:72)whose

characteristics,althoughmethodologicallybasedonindividualism,pointbeyond

therationalactorconventionallyassumedbyliberalpoliticaleconomy,andtake

intoaccountbehavioural,psychological,andemotionalfactorsaswell

(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:77).Crucially,thefocusisonthemacrolevelofan

aggregateofagentsinteractingovertime,thusallowingforthestudyof

nonlinearbehaviouremergingfromthebottomupratherthanconstructinga

modelfromtop‐down:

Bymodellingtherelationshiponthelevelofindividualsinarule‐basedway...

agent‐basedsimulationsallowpeculiarfeaturesofasystemtoemergewithouta

prioriassumptionsonglobalproperties(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:73)

Integratingthebehaviouraldatagatheredundertherubricofbigdatawith

agent‐basedmodelling,theauthorshopetobuilda“global‐scalesuper

simulator“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:77)whichismeanttomovebeyondthe

studyofdistinctsystemstowardsanexpresslyholisticview,thuscreatinga

"LivingEarthSimulatortosimulatetheentireglobe,includingallthediverse

interactionsofsocialsystemsandoftheeconomywithourenvironment"

(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:75‐6).Consequently,theprocesstobesimulated‐that

is,theobjectofknowledge‐figuresasnolessthan"lifeonEarthandeverything

itrelatesto"(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:76).

41

Thisratherfar‐reachingclaimtosimulatelifeonEarthcarriesasemantic

dimensionbeyondacolloquialunderstandingof‘life’.Specifically,thisclaimis

authorisedbyadiscourseonartificiallifewhichextendsthenotionoflifeto

includesocialandartificialsystems,andreformulatesthequestionofwhat

constitutesbeingalivetoaquestionofformindependentofmatterbystressing

thethemeofemergence.KatherineHaylesunderstandsartificiallifeasa

discoursewhichformspartofathirdwaveofcybernetics,movingfrom

questionsofself‐organisationtoevolutionandchange(Hayles,1999:222).A

centralconceptofartificiallifediscourseisemergence,andthegoalofits

accompanyingtechnoscientificpracticeisthe"creationofcomputerprograms

instantiatingemergentorevolutionaryprocesses"(Hayles,1999:225).Asystem

showingemergentbehaviourevolvescomplexordersfromsimplerules

governingtheinteractionsbetweenitscomponents,andthesimulationofthis

processincomputercode,forinstancewithcellularautomataasaprecursorof

agent‐basedmodelling,constitutesanattemptat"buildinglifefromthe'bottom‐

up'"(Hayles,1999:225).Artificiallifesecurestheidentificationofprocessesrun

incomputerswithlivingprocessesthrough

narrativesthatmaptheprogramsintoevolutionaryscenariostraditionally

associatedwiththebehaviouroflivingcreatures[and]translatetheoperations

ofcomputercodesintobiologicalanaloguesthatmakesenseoftheprogram

logic(Hayles,1999:225)

Havingatitsroottheinformationalisationoflifeenactedwithinmolecular

biology,artificiallifeabstractslifefromitsmaterialinstantiationandprivileges

theformofemergenceovermatter,hence“computercodes...becomenatural

formsoflife;onlythemediumisartificial“(Hayles,1999:224).Inthissense,a

42

systemcanbesaidtobealiveregardlessofwhetheritsmaterialbaseis

informationprocessinginsiliconorbiochemicalmetabolism,ifonlyitdisplays

self‐organising,emergent,andevolvingbehaviour(Kember,2003:3).

Inthecontextofsimulatingemergence,cultureandsocietyaredescribedas

emergentstructures.Whiletheaimofthesesimulationsisnottosynthesise

silicon‐basedlife,butratherstudy“life‐as‐we‐know‐it“(Kember,2003:133),

theyareneverthelessembeddedinanartificiallifediscoursewhichdeploys

narrativesofemergenceandevolutiontonaturaliseitsobjectofknowledge.In

theattempttosimulateartificialsocieties,socialstructureemergesfromthe

interactionsofartificialagents(Kember,2003:139).Kemberpointstothe

problematicnaturalisationofthesocialwithinthis

computationalapproachtothesocialsciences,employinganagent‐based

evolutionaryperspectiveinfluencedbyworkoncellularautomata,genetic

algorithms,cybernetics,connectionism,AIandALife(Kember,2003:138‐139)

IntheseminalworkonsimulatingartificialsocietiesbyEpsteinandAxtell

(1996),thesocialsimulationconstructsa"neo‐Darwinistscenarioinvolving

geneticreplication,diversityandselectioninacompetitiveenvironmentof

scarceresources"(Kember,2003:139).Kemberarguesthatthisprojectamounts

toanaturalisationofsocialrelationsnotunlikesociobiology'sratificationof

presentsocialphenomenathroughtheassumptionofevolutionarynecessity

(Kember,2003:139).However,EpsteinandAxtell’sworkisexplicitlyreferenced

inthewhitepaperlayingdownthevisionfortheLivingEarthSimulator,and

presentedasanexampleforsuccessfulapplicationsofagent‐basedmodellingin

thesocialsciences(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:75).Hence,althoughFuturICTdoes

43

notaimtocreatesilicon‐basedlife,theprojectneverthelesspartakesina

discoursewhichdesignatesemergentorganisationasthekeycharacteristicof

life,regardlessofitsspecificmateriality.Iflifeisabstractedfromitsmaterialand

embodiedspecificityandredefinedasemergentorganisationofcomplex

systems,itbecomespossibletoclaimthattheobjectofknowledgetobe

simulatedislifeonEarth,ifnotlifeitself.

Emergence,SarahKemberargues,isthekeyconceptwithwhichartificiallife

discourseconstructsthenaturalnessofitsobjectofknowledgebecauseit

“confersoncomputers...thepowerofevolution–thepowertoevolvelife“

(Kember,2003:56).Theunpredictabilityofemergentbehaviourtransforms

computersimulationsintoalegitimatenature‐likeobjecttobestudiedinthe

senseofthenaturalsciencessinceitevokesascientist‐subjectasawitnessof

natureseparatedfromhisorherobjectofknowledge.Whilethe“constructivist

premiseoftheproject“(Kember,2003:58)remainsevident,thesimulationof

emergenceneverthelessallowsforclaimingascientificsubjectivitywhich

witnessestheevolutionofanaturalprocessratherthaninsinuatinganengineer

constructingatechnicalobject.Hence,thenaturalisationoftheobjectofstudyin

thediscourseandpracticesofartificiallifedependsonconstructingthesubject

positionofthewitnessingscientist,restingonthe“generativeabilityof

simulation,syntheticandvisualisationmachinesand...themultiplicityof

potentialwitnesses“(Kember,2003:58).

IntheFuturICTproposalthenaturalnessoftheobjectunderstudyissecuredby

themetaphorofthe“socioscope“whichallowstheobservertowitnessthe

44

emergenceofsocialphenomenainanexperimentalistconfigurationsimilarto

thenaturalsciences:

Asagent‐basedsimulationsaresuitedfordetailedhypothesis‐testing,onecould

saythattheycanserveasasortofmagnifyingglassortelescope(“socioscope“),

whichmaybeusedtounderstandrealitybetter(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:73)

Themetaphorofthesocioscope,imaginedasascientificinstrumentallowingfor

observationandexperimentationwithsocialprocesses,iscrucialfor

naturalisingtheobjectunderstudyandthusauthorisingtheclaimtoproduce

mattersoffact,thatis,objectiveknowledge.Intheirstudyontheoriginsofthe

experimentalmethod,ShapinandSchaffer(1985)arguethattheestablishment

ofnaturalmattersoffact‐thatis,ofderivingknowledgedirectlyfromnature,

whichauthorisesthisknowledgeasobjective‐restsupontheelaborate

deploymentofmaterial,discursive,andsocialtechnologiesinordertoerase

humanagencyfromtheprocessofknowledgeproduction:

Toidentifytheroleofhumanagencyinthemakingofanitemofknowledgeisto

identifythepossibilityofitsbeingotherwise.Toshifttheagencyontonatural

realityistostipulatethegroundsforuniversalandirrevocableassent

(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:23)

Hence,mattersoffactcometobeacceptedassuchiftheycanbepresentedas

comingintobeingwithoutinvolvinghumanagency.Thescientificinstrumentas

a“meansofintellectualproduction“(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:26),then,playsa

crucialroleinthediscursiveerasureofhumanagencyfromtheconstructionof

mattersoffact.Theinstrumentactsasan“objectifyingresource“whichnotonly

producesnewobjectstobeperceived,butalso"standsbetweentheperceptual

competencesofahumanbeingandnaturalrealityitself...themachine

45

constitutesaresourcethatmaybeusedtofactorouthumanagencyinthe

product"(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:77).However,inordertocompletethe

productionofmattersoffactitisnecessarytomaketheexperimentpublicand

organiseacommunityofwitnesseswhocangiveassenttothepropercoming

intobeingofsaidfacts.Thewitnessingoftheexperiment"wastobeacollective

act...thereliabilityoftestimonydependeduponitsmultiplicity"

(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:56).Thismultiplicationofwitnessesisachievedthrough

publicdemonstrationsbeforeacommunityofscholarsontheonehand,and

throughnarrativeconventionsofscientificwritingwhichconstructanauthor‐

subjectasa“disinterestedobserver“(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:69)ontheother,

whichinvolvesevokingagestureofmodesty:

Amanwhosenarrativescouldbecreditedasmirrorsofrealitywasamodest

man(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:65)

Thefigureofthescientistasamodestwitnesswho,presumablyremovedfrom

hisembodiedbeingintheworld,narratesmattersoffactderiveddirectlyfroma

natureseparatefromtheknowingsubject,servesDonnaHaraway(1997)asone

focalpointtoexaminethepoliticalimplicationsoftechnoscience.ToHaraway,

thisconstitutionoftheboundarybetweenwhatcountsasnaturalmattersoffact

andwhat,asculturalorsocialenactedthroughthefigureofthemodestwitness,

isaprofoundlypoliticalact,sinceitseparatesthedistinctdomainsofobjective

46

knowledgeandrational,technicalsolutionsontheonehand,andthefieldof

politicalcontestationontheother(Haraway,1997:24).11

PresentingtheLivingEarthSimulatorasasocioscope,then,redrawsthe

boundarybetweenthesocialandthenatural.Simulatedsocialprocessescan

henceforthbestudiedasiftheywerenatural:unfoldingasemergent

phenomena,theyareobservedasprocessesseeminglyseparatefromthe

observer.Moreover,thethemeofemergenceallowstheauthorsoftheproject

proposaltoletareferencetopreviousworkoncellularautomatatestifytotheir

claimthatagent‐basedmodellingreflectsreality“inanaturalway“

(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:72).

Furthermore,themetaphorofthesocioscopeunderlinesthenaturalnessofthe

objectunderstudysinceitevokesanexperimentalistpositioningofthescientist

towardhisorherinstrumentandtheobjectthusstudied,constitutingemergent

lifeonEarthasanewperceptualobjectthatbelongstothenaturaldomain.

However,themultiplicationofwitnessesinFuturICTextendsbeyondascholarly

community,andisenvisagedaspotentiallyencompassingawiderpublic.The

authorsproposetocreate“newvisualisationcentersforsophisticatedthree‐

11Harawayarguesthatgenderplayedadecisiveroleintheconstitutionofthemodernscientificmethod.ContrarytoShapinandSchaffer,shesuggeststhatthepeculiar

absenceofwomeninearlyexperimentalistconfigurationsneedstobeunderstoodnot

asaneffectofpreformedgenderidentities,butratherasconstitutiveforaspecific

genderrelationwhichauthorisescertainknowledgesasobjective.Modesty,sheargues,

cameintobeingasagenderrelationwherein"femalemodestywasofthebody;thenew

masculinevirtuehadtobeofthemind"(Haraway,1997:30).Objectivity,then,wasfrom

thebeginningaprerogativeofmenwho"weretobeself‐invisible,transparent,sothat

theirreportswouldnotbepollutedbythebody"(Haraway,1997:32).

47

dimensionalanimationsandthedemonstrationtoalargernumberofdecision‐

makers,fromexpertpanels,overmanagersandpoliticianstotheinterested

public“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86).InFuturICT,the“mimeticdevice“

(Shapin/Schaffer,1985:62)ofrealisticvisualrepresentation,whichusedto

accompanythemodestwitness’descriptionoftheexperiment,istransposedinto

thepostmodernkeyofimmersive“virtualreality“(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:90).

Hence,FuturICTinvitesamultiplicityofwitnessestoimmersethemselvesintoa

simulationofthesocialrelationsinwhichtheyareheterogeneouslysituated–

yetwhichtheyencounterasanatureseparatefromthemselves,asemergentlife

itself.

4.3 Simulation, situatedness, transformation

TheLivingEarthSimulatorwillbecalibratedbyreal‐worlddata,12andmining

theabundanceofbehaviouraldataundertherubricofbigdatafiguresasan

opportunityto“quicklyincreasetheobjectiveknowledgeaboutsocialand

economicsystems“(Helbing/Balietti,2011:4).Speakinginaninterviewwith

Edgemagazineabouttheincreasingavailabilityofbehaviouraldataandtheiruse

inpredictiveanalytics,projectheadDirkHelbingnotesthepossibilitythat

informationcommunicationtechnologieseventuallywillcreateaGod's‐eye

view:systemsthatmakesenseofallhumanactivities,andtheinteractionsof

people(Helbing,2012)

12FeedingthisdataintotheLivingEarthSimulatoristhefunctionoftheenvisioneddatamininginfrastructurePlanetaryNervousSystem,whichisitselfabiologicalmetaphor

resonatingwiththeinformationalisationoflife.

48

Thisfantasyofgod‐likeomniscience,whichHelbingisclearlyawareof,and

whichisembodiedinthemetaphorofthesocioscopeasascientificinstrument

thatyieldsanobjectiveviewonsocietyasawhole,iscriticisedbyDonna

Harawayasafundamentalgestureunderlyingtheassertionofobjectivityinthe

technosciences.Against“dreamsoftheperfectlyknowninhigh‐technology“

(Haraway,1988:589),Harawaycallsforsituatedpracticesofknowledge‐making

thatavoidthedichotomyofobjectivityandrelativism,i.e.practicesthat,while

beingabletogiveaccountsoftheworldthatarenotreducibletorhetoricsand

languageplay,stillbearinmindthe(historical)contingenciesaffectingand

limitingspecificwaysofknowingtheworld,andarethereforeabletopavethe

wayforethicopoliticalprojectsoftransformation(Haraway,1988:579).Haraway

approachesthepossibilityofsuchanaccountthroughreclaimingthefigureof

themodestwitness,andtheactofwitnessingasanactofseeing:“Themodest

witnessIamcallingforisonethatinsistsonsituatedness“(Haraway,2000:

160).Identifyingtheproliferationoftechnologicalandscientifictechniquesof

visualisationwithan“ideologyofdirect,devouring,generative,andunrestricted

vision,whosetechnologicalmediationsaresimultaneouslycelebratedand

presentedasutterlytransparent“(Haraway,1988:582),Harawayseeksto

reconstructvisionasembodiedandpartialperspectivethroughherinsistence

onsituatedness.Theerasureofthesubjectenactedinscientificpracticesof

witnessing,supportedbyinstrumentsofvisualisationasresourcesfor

objectification,amountstoa“godtrickofseeingfromnowhere“(Haraway,1988:

581)whereasHarawayproposes“viewsfromsomewhere“(Haraway,1988:

590)byreintroducingthespecificsubjectpositionofthewitnessintotheactof

witnessing.Takingintoaccountapoststructuralistunderstandingofthesubject

49

asonethatis(re‐)producedthroughandlocatedindiscourseandpractices,and

thereforealwayspartial,unfinishedandrelational,Harawayproposesthe

modestwitnessasaknowingsubjectthatenablesencounterandshared

practicesofknowledge‐makingpreciselybecausethissubject’sperspectiveis

necessarilypartial:

Subjectivityismultidimensional;so,therefore,isvision.Theknowingselfis

partialinallitsguises,neverfinished,whole,simplythereandoriginal;itis

alwaysconstructedandstitchedtogetherimperfectly,andthereforeabletojoin

withanother,toseetogetherwithoutclaimingtobeanother.Hereisthe

promiseofobjectivity,thatis,partialconnection(Haraway,1988:586)

FuturICT’sclaimtoproduceobjectiveknowledgethroughomniscientvisiondoes

notgoentirelyuncontestedinthecomplexitysciencecommunity.P.M.Allen

(2011),acomplexityscientistinvitedtocommentontheFuturICTproposalina

specialissueoftheEuropeanPhysicalJournal,doubtsthepromisethat

simulationcanproduceobjectiveknowledgeleadingtosolutionsforpolitical

problems:

whatevermodelonecreateswillbeseenbythedifferentagentsandactorsas

beingwithintheirownethicalframeworkandsowhatmayseemperfectlyfair

toone,maywellbeseenastotallyunjustbyothers(Allen,2011:137).

Hence,inhiscommentsonthepoliticalpromisesoftheFuturICTprojectAllen

problematisesarelationbetweentruthclaims,power,andperspectivesimilarto

thataddressedinHaraway’scallforsituatedknowledges.Assentcannotbean

effectofthemodelitself,butmustrestonnegotiatingthedifferentperceptions

ofwhatthemodelrepresents,whichentailsengaginginanencounterbetween

differentlypositionedsubjects.FirmlyobjectingtoFuturICT'spropositionthat

50

contemporaryglobalproblemscanbesolvedgivenapresumablyobjective

understandingofthe"fundamentallawsandprocessesunderlyingsocieties"

(Bishopetal.,2011:34),Allenprovidesatakeontheeffectivenessof

modelisationthatknowsofitslimitationsasaknowledge‐makingpractice:

fundamentallythedifficultiesandgrandchallengeswefaceareareflectionof

thehumanconditioninwhichconflictsofinterestreallyexistandpower

structuresoperateatalllevelswithintheglobalsystem...thisdoesnotmean

thatweshouldnotmakemodelssincethatistheonlythingwecando...butitis

simplistictosupposethattherecanbeobjectiveknowledgeofoutcomesand

thatthesecansolvetheproblemsandchallengesweface(Allen,2011:138)

However,ifunderstoodinanon‐essentialistway,thehumanconditionofwhich

Allenspeaksamountstoasedimentedhistory.Thishistoryispreciselywhat

marksthedifferencebetweenphysical,living,andsocialsystems,asIsabelle

Stengersremarksinlightofearlierattemptstotransfercomplexitymodels

acrossdisciplinaryboundaries:

Contrarytochemicalsystemsforwhichwearesupposedtotakeintoaccountall

thepossibilitiesofreaction,livingandhistoricalindividuals,cells,termites,or

humankindwhosecollectivebehaviourwecanenvisagestudyingare

characterisedbyanindefinitemultiplicationofinteractions.Thus,achoiceis

imposedandthemodelcanhavenoothervalueorvaliditythanthatofthis

choice(Stengers,1997:74)

Thischoice,then,impliesastrongresponsibility,asthosewhochoosehowto

constructthemodel"arealwaysindangerofratifyingthedefinitionofasystem

asitisgiveninthecircumstanceswheretheyfindit"(Stengers,1997:74).

Hence,howtodesignartificialagentsandtheirinteractionsfromwhichsocial

51

structuresemergeisaprofoundlypoliticalchoicethatprivilegesthestatusquo

preciselyiftheexactitudeandobjectivityofthesimulation,andofthefutures

extrapolatedfromit,aremeanttostemfromtheintegrationofbehaviouraldata

fromtheInternet,asisthecaseinFuturICT:

Byselecting,intheirdescriptionofasystem,theinteractionsthathavebeen

stabilisedandprivilegedbythehistorical,social,andpoliticalcontext,theynot

onlytakenoteofthiscontextbutalsojustifyit,becausetheirmodelscanonly

negateorovershadowthepossibilityofotherbehavioursthatdonotrespondto

thedominantlogic(Stengers,1997:75)

FuturICT’sprojectofsimulatingsocietyasalivingsystem,then,runsriskof

stabilisingagivennormativerealitythroughitsinsistenceonanobjectivity

derivedfromtheintegrationofreal‐worlddatawhichcalibrateasimulationthat

ismeanttoemergesocialstructuresinanaturalway.Promisinganomniscient

God’s‐eyeviewpresumablydevoidofpositionedsubjectivitythroughitsreliance

ontechnology,thisactofprivilegingthegivenorderoverthepossibleseems

fraughtwithaninherentriskofconservativebias.Contrarytotherhetoricof

emergence,evolution,andchange,avenuesfortransformationcanbeclosedoff

bydisregardingembodiedsubjectivity,historicalcontingency,andthus

opennesstodifferenceandtransformation.

52

4.4 Imag(in)ing global life

InFuturICT,thelifetobesimulatedisimaginedasharbouringpotentialthreats,

thusunderscoringaprogressnarrativethatpromisestechnoscientificsalvation

fromimpendingcrisesinherentinthecomplexityofsystems.

IntheanimatedintroductiontothepromotionalvideoontheFuturICTwebsite

(Fig.1),agloberevolvesfromwhichstringsofbinarydataemergeandreachout

intotheorbit,eventuallyencirclingtheglobeandweavingitintoasphereof

interconnecteddatastreamsinwhichwordslike‘famine’,‘drought’and

‘migration’popup(FuturICT,2012b).Theaccompanyingmusicevokesasense

ofurgencyreminiscentofanewsbroadcast.

Fig.1 Video still of revolving globe enveloped by data (FuturICT, 2012b)

53

Fig.2 The whole earth as interface (European Commission, 2011: 10)

InthepublicationoftheEuropeanCommissionannouncingFuturICTasanFET

flagshipcandidate(Fig.2),anillustrationshowstwowhitepeople,amananda

woman,visiblethroughatranslucentinterfaceshowingaphotorealisticthree‐

dimensionalglobeframedbyanumberofgraphs,chartsanddiagramsaswellas

picturesoftrees,bark,surfandcloudysky.Visiblyfascinatedbytheanimation,

themanpointsattheglobewhilethewomanstandsbywatchingdocilely

(EuropeanCommission,2011).

Whilethelatterillustrationinvitesawestern‐centricandgenderedreading

wherewhitemanfiguresasmasterofatechnologicallyrenderedworld,there

appearstobeasemanticconnotationsharedbetweenbothillustrations,evoking

anotionofvulnerablenatureremadethroughtechnologyandunderscoringa

progressnarrativereinvigoratedbythenotionofcomplexity.Franklinetal.

(2000)analysetheglobeasaniconthat"encapsulatescontemporary

understandingsoflifeonearth",conveyingasenseof"bothendangeredfragility

54

andthevitalityofaluminescentlifeforce"(Franklinetal.,2000:27).

Photographedfromspace,thepictureofthewholeearthisaproductof

technologicalprowess,yetitalsocarriesdeepambiguities.Thenarrativeof

technologicalmasteryandprogressitplaysinto,elevatingtheviewerintoa

"God's‐eye"(Franklinetal.,2000:27)position,iscounteractedby“fears

concerningfuturehumansurvival,andthetechnologicalrisksnecessaryto

producesuchimagesinthefirstplace“(Franklinetal.,2000:31).Thelossofa

horizon,thatis,seeingtheearthasa“whole,discreteentity“lendsthepictureto

notionsof“sharedplanetaryinterdependence“insinuatinga“newlyimagedand

imaginedformofglobalunity“(Franklinetal.,2000:28).Thenaturethus

imaginedthroughtheimageofthewholeearthiswhollyremadebytechnology

andvulnerable,butnonethelessnatural:itserves,asFranklinetal.argue,asa

transformedcontexttogroundtheinterpellationofasubjectthatunderstands

itselfaspartofaglobalpopulationatsharedrisk(Franklinetal.,2000:26).

Juxtaposingpatternsofnaturewithgraphsanddiagrams,andrepresentinglife

onEarthasemerginginformationalpatternsbearingpotentialrisks,thevisual

narrativesurroundingFuturICTevokesasenseofatechnologicallypermeated

andinterconnectedworldunderthreatwhichnecessitatesaGod’s‐eyeviewin

ordertounderstandandmasterit.Thethreatinherentinlifeislinkedwithits

understandingasacomplexsystem.Inawhitepaperpositingtheneedfor

FuturICT,HelbingandBaliettistatethatthe“grandchallengesfacingmankindin

the21stcentury”arepotentiallycatastrophiccrisesconceivedas“systemic

instabilities,andothercontagiouscascade‐spreadingprocesses”

(Helbing/Balietti,2011:3).HelbingandBaliettisituatetherootcausesof

contemporarycrisesandconflictssuchastheglobalfinancialcrashandthe

55

Greekuprisingagainstausterityinthenonlinearbehaviourofcomplexsystems

wherethe“impactofrandomlocaleventsofperturbationsbecomessystemicin

size”(Helbing/Balietti,2011:19).

Thissenseofcomplexsystemspotentiallyrunningoutofcontrolandthreatening

mankind,whichhencemustbemasteredbyscientificrationality,resonateswith

agenderedimaginarythattraditionallyinformswesternnotionsoftherelation

betweenscienceandnature.SandraHarding(1986)arguesthatagendered

imaginaryofadistinctlyfemalenatureliesattherootofthemodernscientific

worldview.Naturewasimaginedasexistinginatensionbetweentheimagesof

thepassivewoman,indifferenttotheactivemale'sexperimentalworkonher

body‐frequentlyimaginedasaformofviolation‐andan“unruly,wildnature”

(Harding,1986:115)figuringasathreateningandunstablewomanassociated

withthebreakdownoforder.Whatismore,BarbaraCreed(1993:1‐2)argues

thatinWesternculturethegenderedimaginaryofthe“monstrous‐feminine”was

frequentlyassociatedwiththe“adventofnaturaldisasters”.Thisfeminine

nature‐out‐of‐control,then,wastobetamedandmasteredbyscientific

knowledge‐makingifmanwasto“controlhisfate”(Harding,1986:115).

Moreover,DonnaHaraway(1997:8)maintainsthatnarrativesofimpending

apocalypsefromwhichthetechnosciencespromisesalvationlieattherootof

modernnotionsofprogress.ThenarrativeofFuturICTisnoexceptiontothat.

Giventhethreatemanatingfrom“hopelesslycomplex”(Bishopetal.,2011:34)

systems,andinvokingtheexperienceofcontemporarycrisessuchasthe

financialcrashandrecurrentpoliticalinstabilities,theinitiatorsofFuturICT

56

assumea“moralobligation”(FuturICT,2012:3)tounderstandandmanage

complexity:

Quickscientificprogressisneededinordertolearnhowtoefficientlystopthe

on‐goingcascadingeffectsanddownwardtrends(FuturICT,2012:3)

Understandingcomplexity,then,isinfusedwithamoraldiscoursewherealack

ofawarenessofcomplexityleadstocatastrophe.Hence,althoughinFuturICTthe

modernmetanarrativeofscientificprogress(Lyotard,1984)appearstobe

tainted,ifnotbroken,byanacknowledgmentoftheprofusionofrisks

accompanyingthedevelopmentoftechnologicalsystems,thenarrativeis

eventuallyresurrectedandstabilisedwiththepromiseofanewscientific

perspectiveandtechnologiesforunderstandingandmanagingcomplexity.In

fact,asIsabelleStengers(1997)notes,thediscourseoncomplexitytendsto

stressthemesofcrisistoestablishcomplexityasanewparadigm:

Whatseemstohappenisthatthemesofworldcrisis,andaquestioningofthe

presuppositionsthatallowedustounderestimatethecrisisortothinkofitas

epiphenomenal,areinterwovenwiththethemesofa‘newrationality’(Stengers,

1997:4)

Thus,theaboundingthemesof“instability,crisis,differentiation,catastrophes,

andimpasses”(Stengers,1997:4)incomplexitydiscoursecometounderscorea

strategicinterventiontoreplaceanoldparadigmwithanewone,andthereby

postulatetheprospectofsolvingimpendingproblemsthathithertocouldnotbe

solved.Repeatingthegestureofscientism,then,thescienceofcomplexity“is

heraldedassolutiontoethicopoliticalproblems”(Stengers,1994:4).

57

4.5 Biomimetic government

InaworkingpaperonsystemicrisksfortheSantaFeInstitute,projectheadDirk

Helbing(2009)outlinestheproblemsofcontrolincomplexsystems,mainly

amongthemthoseissuesstemmingfromtheirnonlinearity,thatis,

unpredictabilityinthelongrun,andthedisproportionalityofcauseandeffect

wherein“bigchangesmayhavesmallornoeffects”but“smallchangesmay

causeasuddenregimeshift”ifthesystemisnearacriticalpoint(Helbing,2009:

5).TheworldHelbingenvisionsisfarfromequilibriumandmightbestbe

characterisedas“alwaysalreadyoutofcontrol”(Kember,2003:117),thus

demandingnovelstrategiesofgoverning:

inastronglyvaryingworld,strictstabilityisnotpossibleanymore...aparadigm

shifttowardsmoreflexible,agile,adaptivesystemsisneeded,possible,and

overdue(Helbing,2009:8)

Consideringthisunstableworld,Helbingmaintainsthat“complexsystems

cannotbecontrolledintheconventionalway”butshouldratherbemanagedby

“strengthen[ing]theself‐organisationandself‐controlofthesystem”(Helbing,

2009:6).Managingcomplexity,then,impliestakingintoaccountacertain

knowledgeofthemomentumandintrinsicdynamicsofcomplexsystemsin

ordertostimulatetheemergenceoffavourablesystembehaviour,thatis,to

“workwiththesystemratherthanagainstit”(Helbing,2009:8).

Ofcourse,thisemphasisonorderemergingfromtheinteractionsofindividuals

inaself‐organisedwayisreminiscentoftheinvisiblehandofliberalism.

However,whileHelbingacknowledgesthemetaphoroftheinvisiblehandas

prefiguringthenotionofself‐organisation,heemphasisesthatself‐organisation

58

neednotnecessarilyleadtooptimalequilibrium,ratherequilibriumneeds

“properlychosen[interaction]rules”(Helbing,2009:9).Oneofthetechniques

Helbingproposestoachievethisismechanismdesignwhichattemptsto

influencetheinteractionsbetweensystemelementsinorderforfavourable

behaviourtoemergefromthebottomup:

regulationsshouldnotspecifywhatexactlythesystemelementsshoulddo,but

setboundstoactions(define'rulesofthegame'),whichgivethesystem

elementsenoughdegreesoffreedomtoself‐organizegoodsolutions(Helbing,

2009:6)

Helbingetal.(2009)provideanexampleforsuchamechanisminapaperona

biomimeticlogisticssystemtakingitscuesfrombiologicaltransportsystemson

themolecularlevel.Drawingananalogybetweenhuman‐madetrafficsystems

andcellularmetabolismasbothcomplexsystems,theyidentifynaturalsuccess

strategiestobeappliedtologisticsingeneral:

Theunderlyingsuccessstrategiesincludeextensiverecycling,self‐organization,

self‐assembly,andself‐repair.Thesepropertiesarelargelybasedonlocal

interactions,i.e.ondecentralisedcontrolapproaches.(Helbingetal.,2009:538)

Thecontrolstrategythusderivedfrombiologicalknowledgeandputinpractice

intrafficcontrolresultsinbottom‐upself‐organisationwhichisconceivedas

markedlydifferentfromtop‐downfeedbackcontrol,andisheldtoproducea

muchmoreefficientandrobustsystemperformancethatisabletotolerate

fluctuations.Inessence,themechanismconsistsofacontinuouslymeasuring

predictionsystemoftrafficflow,whichregulatesthetrafficlightsystemsothat

“trafficstreamscontrolthetrafficlightsratherthantheotherwayaround”

(Helbingetal.,2009:543).Theproposedmechanismseemstosharesomeofits

59

functionallogicwiththeprocessofmodulationwhichGillesDeleuze(1992)

describesinhisessayonthesocietiesofcontrol.Modulationgovernsflexibly

“likeasievewhosemeshwilltransmutefrompointtopoint”(Deleuze,1992:4).

Analysingtheinterplaybetweendatacollectionandpredictiveanalyticsin

digitalenvironmentsasaformofmodulation,DavidSavatstatesthat“itisnow

theenvironmentthatadjuststoyou,anddoessoinadvance”(Savat,2009:57).

Crucially,thebottom‐upapproachtoself‐organisationinthiscasedoesnot

simplymeanlaissez­faire,butratheraimstoshapetheconditionsunderwhich

favourableprocessesofself‐organisationcanoccur.Theauthorsderivefromthe

functionalprinciplesofbiological“autocatalyticandinhibitoryprocesses”a

regulatorytechniqueof“gentleinterference”(Helbingetal.,2009:544)which

meansthat

iftheinteractionsbetweenthesystemelementsaresuitable,onlysmall

feedbacksignalsarenecessarytoreachthedesiredbehaviour(Helbingetal.,

2009:544)

IntheirwhitepaperonFuturICT,HelbingandBalietti(2011a:82)expressthe

convictionthatsimilarbiomimetictechnologiesmightbeappliedtothe

governanceofcomplexsocialandeconomicsystemsaswell,andenvision

FuturICTasresearchinganddevelopingsuchtechniques.

Thisattemptatincreasingrobustnessthroughstimulatingself‐organisationis

furtheremphasisedinFuturICT’sstatedgoalofincreasing‘systemicresilienceof

thesociety’(Bishopetal.,2011:36).Resilienceisthecapacityofanetworked

systemtowithstandexternalorinternalperturbations,andcloselyrelatedtothe

differentnetworktopologiesdescribedingraphtheorywherein

60

scale‐freenetworksarenotresilienttofailuresoftheirhubs,andarethusquite

vulnerabletoaccidentalfailuresortargetedattacks(Mitchell,2006:1200)

Increasingtheresilienceofanetworkmeansreducingitssusceptibilityto

cascadingfailure(Helbing,2009:9).Cascadingfailuredenotesthatfaultsof

singlecriticalnodescanhavenonlinearsystem‐wideeffects,threateningthe

networkasawholeifacertainthresholdisreached(Helbing,2009:3).Ina

certainsense,thethreattothesystemisinherentinitscomplexity:asidefrom

externalshockswhichmightputthenetworkunderstress,thenonlinear

amplificationofinternalfluctuationsentailsthat“someendogeneousprocesses

canautomaticallydrivethesystemtowardsacriticalstate”(Helbing,2009:4).

Understoodasco‐evolvingwithitsenvironment,thesystem’scapacityto

maintainorganisationalcomplexitydespiteperturbationsaddsthedimensionof

evolutionaryadaptabilitytothenotionofresilience.ForHelbingandBalietti,

resilienceandevolutionaryadaptationrepresentanargumentforthe

maintenanceofsocialdiversity,protectionofminorities,andstrongprivacy

controlsasapreconditionforsocialsystemstoadapttoanunstable

environment:

Asisknownfromevolutionarytheory,innovationthrivesbestwhenthereisa

largediversityofvariants.Inotherwords,diversityor‘pluralism’isthemotor

drivinginnovation.Wouldwejustorientourselvesatthemajorityorwhatis

‘normal’(theaverage),theinnovationrateand,withthis,adaptabilityto

changing(environmental)conditionswouldbepoor(Helbing/Balietti,2011:27)

Groundingthisanalogybetweensocialchangeandbiologicalevolutionfirmlyin

aliberaldemocraticteleology,theauthorsproceedtoarguethatalackofsocial

61

diversity,andthusadaptability,is“actuallythereasonwhytotalitarianregimes

aresoonerorlaterdestinedtofail”(Helbing/Balietti,2011:27).

Yetdiversityperseisnotheldtobesufficient.Ratherthanlettingevolutionrun

itsway,HelbingandBaliettienvisiona“paradigmshiftindecision‐making”

whichinvolvesusingtheLivingEarthSimulatortoexperimentallytestthe

probableoutcomesofasetofpolicyoptionsbeforeimplementingthem

(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86).Here,simulationprecedesimplementation,and

geneticalgorithmsareenvisagedtocreateandtestdifferentpolicyoptions

beforetheyareimplementedinreality.Geneticalgorithmsarecomputer

programmesthat

employDarwinianprinciplesofevolutioninordertoincreasethefitnessof

successivegenerationsofalgorithms,wherefitnessisameasureofsuccessin

solvingspecificcomputationalproblems(Kember,2003:123)

However,whichofthenewpoliciesgeneratedbygeneticalgorithmswillenjoy

system‐wideimplementationisagaindeterminedbytheirevolutionarysuccess,

whichisderivedfrommeasuringthepolicy’sperformanceinaninitiallylimited

real‐worlddomain(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86).Thus,theauthorsimaginethe

governmentalprocessasaguidedevolutionovermultiplesteps.Variationsare

designedwiththeaidofgeneticalgorithms,thentestedlocallyastotheirfitness

and,ifprovensuccessful,appliedtothewholepopulation.HelbingandBalietti

frametheirreimaginedgovernmentalprocessinevolutionaryterms,promisinga

methodofsecuringpoliticalsuccessauthorisedbynatureitself:

Insomesense,thisapproachtoimplementinginnovationsismorealongthe

linesofhownatureseemstowork.Infact,thedescribedapproachbasically

62

followstheprinciplesofevolution,withthemaindifferencethatsomeofthe

testingofnewsolutionshappensinthevirtualratherthantherealworld,and

onlythebestvariantsaredeployedinreality(Helbing/Balietti,2011a:86)

Hence,asaconsequenceofthenaturalisationofthesocialasacomplexliving

systemembodiedintheLivingEarthSimulator,asetofregulatorytechniques

areproposedthatestablishaspecificgovernmentalarchitecturewhich

incorporatesthedynamicsoflife.Regulatingthesocialaccordingtotheintrinsic

characteristicsoflivingsystemswhicharenolongersecurelyhomeostatic,but

ratherpronetosuddenchange,thesetechnologiesseektostimulateself‐

organisationthroughthedesignofmechanismsthatgovernsocialinteractionsin

ordertoproducetheemergenceoffavourableorganisation,increasesystemic

resiliencebyrenderingdiversityaresourcenecessaryforadaptation,andapply

evolutionaryprinciplesinordertogovernsocialchange.

63

5. Conclusion: biopolitical simulations

Writingontheculturalsignificanceofnonlineardynamics,KatherineHayles

arguesthatthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcenturywitnessedawidespreadshift

towards“exploringthepossibilitiesofdisorder”(Hayles,1990:xi).Whereasthe

scientificstudyofnonlinearsystemscouldonlytakeoffaftermorecomputers

becameavailableasscientificinstrumentsinthe1960sand1970s,through

environmentalandeconomiccrisesthisperiodalreadyproducedthe“growing

realisationthattheworlditselfhasbecome(oralreadywas)acomplexsystem

economically,technologically,environmentally”(Hayles,1990:5).Considering

the“rapiddevelopmentofinformationtechnologies”inthesubsequentdecades,

an“increasingawarenessofglobalcomplexities,andconsequentattentionto

smallfluctuations”(Hayles,1990:9)providestheculturalframeforthequestion

ofhowordermightbeachievedinaworldrenderedfundamentallyunstable.

Complexity,then,posesaquestiontowhichlifeistheanswer:howtogovern

livingbeingsinan“unstableworldwheresmallcausescanhavelargeeffects”

(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:260).Whereasthespecificknowledgeoflifeinthe

19thcenturyprovidedafunctionalmodelfororganisingcirculationswithina

population,inFuturICTlifefiguresasananswertothequestiondrivingthe

complexitysciences,thatis,“howtocopewithacomplexenvironment...by

achievingakindofpoisedstatebalancedontheedgeofchaos”(Kauffman,1995:

86).WithintheknowledgesoflifewhichCanguilhemdiscussesinthecontextof

19thcenturybiology,thelivingorganismfiguredasahomeostaticapparatus

maintainingitsequilibriuminnegotiationwithitsmilieu(Canguilhem,1994:

85).Moreover,Foucaultshowshowthethemesofhomeostasisandequilibrium

64

playedadecisiveroleintheestablishmentofbiopoliticsatthethresholdof

modernity;abiopoliticswhichaimedtomaintainastableequilibriumwithina

populationbyincorporatingintoitsregulatorytechniquesaspecificknowledge

oflifeasanormativeprocesstendingtowardshomeostasis(Foucault,2007:37;

2004:241).WhileCanguilhem(1994:86‐7)acknowledgesthecontinuity

betweenthe19thcenturyknowledgeofthelivingbeingasahomeostaticentity

and20thcenturycybernetictheoriesofself‐regulation,heformulatesaproblem

thatshouldlaterbeaddressedbytheoriesofcomplexity.Iftheorganismis

conceivedasacyberneticapparatuscontinuallyself‐regulatinginordertoresist

thegeneraltendencytowardsthedisorderofentropy,howtoaccountforthe

existenceoforderedlivingbeingsinthefirstplace?Or,inCanguilhem’sown

words:“Isorganisationorderamidstdisorder?”(Canguilhem,1994:87).Thisis

preciselythequestionwhichtheoriesofemergenceseektoanswerby

investigatingthespontaneousself‐organisationoforderinwhich“entropy‐rich

systemsfacilitateratherthanimpedeself‐organisation”(Hayles,1990:9)and

“nature...canrenewitselfpreciselybecauseitisrichindisorderandsurprise”

(Hayles,1990:11).Disorder,then,becomestheconditionofpossibilityoforder,

andtheself‐organisationoflivingsystemsthekeyformaintainingorderamidst

aturbulentenvironment,thusprovidingafunctionalmodelforgoverning

complexsystems.

Hence,inFuturICTbiopowerpersistsasamodalityofpowerwhichgoverns

livingbeingsaccordingtoaspecificincorporatedknowledgeoflife.Lifebecomes

anobjectofknowledgewithinsimulationswhichemployagent‐basedmodelling

inordertostudytheself‐organisedemergenceofsocialstructures,anda

governabledomainthroughthedevelopmentoftechniqueswhichseekto

65

regulatecomplexsystemsaccordingtotheirfunctionaldynamics.Whereas

FuturICT’sdepoliticisedtechnologicalrationalityisnotanoveltyinthecontext

ofglobalsimulations(Ashley,1983),thespecificityoftheproject,however,lies

intheinstrumentalisationoflifeforauthorisingmechanismsofpower.The

proposedtechnologiesforgoverningcomplexsystemsarenotonlyderivedfrom

theobservationofbiologicalprocesses,butarelegitimisedpreciselybecause,in

thediscourseinformingFuturICT,socialsystemsfigureasaliveinasimilarsense

asbiologicalsystems:sincebothcanbeunderstoodasnonlinearsystemswhich

evolveformsoforganisationthatexistalwaysattheedgeofdisorder,the

governanceoflivingbeingsbecomesamatterofmanagingcomplexityinorder

topreservetheprecariousstabilityofathreatenedsocialorder.Paraphrasing

Foucault's(2007:22)remarksontherelationbetweennatureandartificein

biopolitics,then,onecouldsaythatthebiomimetictechnologiesenvisionedin

FuturICTfunctionasanatureinrelationtoapopulationthat,whilebeingwoven

fromsocialrelations,alsofunctionsasalivingsystem.

However,thespecificbiopoliticalmechanismsinformedbythedynamicsoflife

havechangedfromestablishingself‐regulatingcirculationstostimulatingself‐

organisation,andfromanorientationtowardslife’sproductionofnorms,and

thusnormalisation,toanincreasedattentiontowardsthepossibleimpactof

localeventsunderstoodas“fluctuationsthatthreaten[systemic]stability”

(Prigogine/Stengers,1984:188).Thesemechanismsaretechnicalsolutionsto

ethicopoliticalproblemswhichgainauthoritypreciselybecausetheproblems

theyaredeemedtosolvehavebeennaturalisedbefore.Inthecontextof

sociobiologyanditsrecentiterationssuchasevolutionarypsychology,Kember

arguesthattheactofnaturalisingformerlydenaturalised,contingentsocial

66

relationssuchasgenderisprofoundlypoliticalbecauseitdepoliticisesthrough

itsjustificationofthestatusquo,andthus“absolvesusoftheresponsibilityto

act”(Kember,2003:34).Actualisingasimilarlogic,FuturICTnarrowsthespace

ofpoliticsdowntoamatterofapplyingatechnologicalrationalityprefiguredin

thescientificprojectofattainingmasteryovernature,whichneglectsthe

responsibilityforreflectingonandtransformingthehistoricallystabilisedsocial

relationswhichbringforththeglobalproblemswhichFuturICTseekstoaddress.

Yetthereformulationoflifewithincomplexitytheoriescouldalsoprovidean

avenuefordifferentformsofknowledge‐making.Inherdiscussionofthe

continuingrelevanceofCanguilhem’sengagementwithvitalism,MonicaGreco

suggeststhatthespecificityoflifeasanobjectofknowledgeresiststotalising

epistemologiesbecause“thescienceoflifeis,itself,amanifestationoftheactivity

oftheliving,amanifestationofitsownsubjectmatter”(Greco,2005:18).

FollowingCanguilhem,theindividualcangainknowledgeofitsenvironment–

itsmilieu–onlyinsofarasitisalwaysalreadysituatedwithinthisenvironment

asaspecificlivingbeing,experiencingitasitsconditionsofexistence(Greco,

2005:19).Thesituatednessoftheknowingsubjectintheworldisthus

introducedintotherelationbetweensubjectandobjectofknowledge.Rather

thanassuminganontologicallystable,knowingindividualseparatefromits

objectofknowledge,theinsistenceonthecouplingoforganismandmilieu,and

theunstableboundarybetweenthesetwo,implicatesapartialandrelational

perspectivemoreakintoHaraway’ssituatedknowledges(Greco,2005:20‐1).

Interestingly,GrecodelineatesacertaincontinuityinCanguilhem’sand

Haraway’sepistemologiesandIsabelleStengers’philosophicalinterpretationof

67

thesciencesofcomplexity.Giventhereformulationofthelivingasacomplex

system,Stengers(1997)groundsherpleaforadifferentethosofthoughtinthe

temporalityofnonlinearsystems.Ifnonlinearitysignifiesahighsensitivityto

slightdifferencesininitialconditions,thenthepositionoftheideal,god‐like

observerwhomightundertaketheperfectinitialmeasurementspresupposedby

classicalphysicsinordertopredictthebehaviourofasystemissimplynot

attainablepreciselybecauseofthetemporalandspatialsituatednessofboth

systemandobserver(Stengers,1997:39‐40).Contrarytothetechnoscientific

andbiopoliticalrationalityenactedinFuturICT,then,understandinglifeinterms

ofcomplexitycouldaswellyieldadifferentpracticeofknowledge‐making

whereinlifeisnotinstrumentalisedforstabilisingpowerrelations:apractice

thatassumesapartialperspectivewhereinomniscienceisfutile,asisafantasy

ofpredictionandcontrol,forinthestudyofnonlinearity,andthuslife,therecan

onlybesituatedsubjects.

68

Bibliography

Agamben,G.(1998)Homosacer.Sovereignpowerandbarelife.Stanford:

StanfordCaliforniaPress.

Allen,P.(2011)'CommentsbyP.AllenontheVisioneerwhitepapersbyD.

HelbingandS.Balietti'EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics195,165‐186.

Ashley,R.(1983)'Theeyeofpower:thepoliticsofworldmodeling'International

Organization37(3),495‐535.

Barry,A.(2006)'Technologicalzones'EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory9(2),

239‐253.

Bergson,H.(1998)Creativeevolution.Mineola:Dover.

Bishop,S.etal.(2011)'TheEuropeanFutureTechnologiesConferenceand

Exhibition2011.FuturICT:FETFlagshipPilotProject'ProcediaComputerScience

7,34‐38.

Bollier,D.(2010)Thepromiseandperilofbigdata[Online].Availableat:

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/promise‐peril‐big‐data(Accessed:

27August2012)

Canguilhem,G.(2008)Knowledgeoflife.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.

Canguilhem,G.(1994)Avitalrationalist.NewYork:ZoneBooks.

Creed,B.(1993)TheMonstrous­Feminine.Film,feminism,psychoanalysis.London

andNewYork:Routledge.

Deleuze,G.(1992)'Postscriptonthesocietiesofcontrol'October59,3‐7.

Doyle,R.(1997)Onbeyondliving.Rhetoricaltransformationsofthelifesciences.

Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Economist(2010)'Thedatadeluge',25February.Economist[Online].Available

at:http://www.economist.com/node/15579717(Accessed:27August2012).

Epstein,J.&Axtell,R.(1996)Growingartificialsocieties.Socialsciencefromthe

bottom­up.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

69

EuropeanCommission(2011)BuildingFETflagships:aworld­classscientific

endeavour.Brussels:DirectorateGeneralInformationSocietyandMedia.

Foucault,M.(2008)ThehistoryofsexualityVol.1:thewilltoknowledge.

Camberwell:Penguin.

Foucault,M.(2008a)Thebirthofbiopolitics:lecturesattheCollègedeFrance,

1978­1979.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Foucault,M.(2007)Security,territory,population:lecturesattheCollègede

France,1977­78.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Foucault,M.(2007a)'Whatiscritique?',inLotringer,S.(ed.)Thepoliticsoftruth.

LosAngeles:Semiotexte,41‐81.

Foucault,M.(2004)Societymustbedefended:lecturesattheCollègedeFrance,

1975­76.London:Penguin.

Foucault,M.(2002)Theorderofthings.NewYork:Routledge.

Foucault,M.(1991)Disciplineandpunish:thebirthoftheprison.London:

Penguin.

Franklin,S.etal.(2000)Globalnature,globalculture.London:Sage.

FranklinS.(2000)'Lifeitself',inFranklin,S.etal.(eds.)Globalnature,global

culture.London:Sage,188‐224.

FuturICT(2012)Globalcomputingforourcomplexworld[Online].Availableat:

http://www.futurict.eu/sites/default/files/docs/files/FuturICT_32p_Project%2

0Outline%20WITH%20LHS.pdf(Accessed:27August2012)

FuturICT(2012a)ResponseintheMedia.Availableat:

http://www.futurict.eu/response‐in‐the‐media(Accessed:27August2012)

FuturICT(2012b)FuturICTdocumentary.Availableat:

http://vimeo.com/29480781(Accessed:27August2012).

Greco,M.(2005)'Onthevitalityofvitalism'Theory,Culture&Society22(1),15‐

27.

Hacking,I.(1982)'Biopowerandtheavalancheofprintednumbers'Humanities

inSociety5(3&4),279‐295.

70

Haraway,D.(2004)'Therearealwaysmorethingsgoingonthanyouthought!

Methodologiesasthinkingtechnologies’,Haraway,D.(ed.)TheHarawayReader.

NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,332‐342.

Haraway,D.(2000)Howlikealeaf.AninterviewwithThyrzaNicholsGoodeve.

NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.

Haraway,D.(1997)

Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan_Meets_OncoMouse.NewYork

andLondon:Routledge.

Haraway,D.(1990)'Amanifestoforcyborgs:science,technology,andsocialist

feminisminthe1980s',inNicholson,L.(ed.)Feminism/Postmodernism.London

andNewYork:Routledge,191‐233.

Haraway,D.(1988)'Situatedknowledges:thesciencequestioninfeminismand

theprivilegeofpartialperspective'FeministStudies14(3),575‐599.

Harding,S.(1986)Thesciencequestioninfeminism.Ithaca:CornellUniversity

Press.

Hayles,K.(1999)Howwebecameposthuman.Virtualbodiesincybernetics,

literature,andinformatics.ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

Hayles,K.(1990)Chaosbound.Orderlydisorderincontemporaryliteratureand

science.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.

Helbing,D.(2012)'Anewkindofsocio‐inspiredtechnology'Edge,19June

[Online].Availableat:http://edge.org/conversation/a‐new‐kind‐of‐social‐

inspired‐technology(Accessed:27August2012)

Helbing,D.(2009)'SystemicRisksinSocietyandEconomics'[Online].Available

at:http://www.santafe.edu/research/working‐

papers/abstract/9596e5a57d1f9b7e8fcc289f118555ce/(Accessed:27August

2012).

Helbing,D.&Balietti,S.(2011)'Fromsocialdataminingtoforecastingeconomic

crises'EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics195,3‐68.

Helbing,D.&Balietti,S.(2011a)'Fromsocialsimulationtointegrativesystem

design'EuropeanPhysicalJournalSpecialTopics195,69‐100.

71

Helbing,D.etal.(2011)'Understanding,creating,andmanagingcomplextechno‐

socio‐economicsystems:challengesandperspectives'EuropeanPhysicalJournal

SpecialTopics195,165‐186.

Helbing,D.etal.(2009)'Biologisticsandthestruggleforefficiency:conceptsand

perspectives'AdvancesinComplexSystems12(6),533‐548.

Humphreys,P.(2002)'Mathematicalmodelinginthesocialsciences',inTurner,

S.&Roth,A.(eds.)TheBlackwellguidetothephilosophyofthesocialsciences.

Malden,OxfordandBerlin:Blackwell,166‐184.

Kauffman,S.(1995)Athomeintheuniverse.Thesearchforthelawsofself­

organizationandcomplexity.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Kay,L.(2000)Whowrotethebookoflife?Ahistoryofthegeneticcode.Stanford:

StanfordUniversityPress.

Keller,E.(2005)'Revisiting"scale‐free"networks'BioEssays27,1060‐1068.

Kember,S.(2003)Cyberfeminismandartificiallife.LondonandNewYork:

Routledge.

Kember,S.(2006)'Doingtechnoscienceas('new')media',inCurran,J.&Morley,

D.(eds.)Mediaandculturaltheory.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Lazer,D.etal.(2009)'Lifeinthenetwork:thecomingageofcomputational

socialscience'TobepublishedinScience.NIHPA[Preprint].Availableat:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745217/(Accessed:27

August2012).

Lemke,T.(2011)Biopolitics.Anadvancedintroduction.NewYorkandLondon:

NewYorkUniversityPress.

Lyotard,J.(1984)Thepostmoderncondition.Areportonknowledge.

Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Manyika,J.etal.(2011)'Bigdata:Thenextfrontierforinnovation,competition,

andproductivity'[Online].Availableat:

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/technology_and_innovation/

big_data_the_next_frontier_for_innovation(Accessed:27August2012).

72

Mayr,O.(1986)Authority,liberty&automaticmachineryinearlymodernEurope.

BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

Mislove,A.etal.(2010)'PulseoftheNation:U.S.MoodThroughouttheDay

inferredfromTwitter'[Online].Availableat:

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/amislove/twittermood/(Accessed:27August

2012).

Mitchell,M.(2009)Complexity.Aguidedtour.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Mitchell,M.(2006)'Complexsystems:networkthinking'ArtificialIntelligence

170,1194‐1212.

Muhle,M.(2007)EineGenealogiederBio­Politik.EineUntersuchungdes

LebensbegriffsbeiMichelFoucaultundGeorgesCanguilhem.PhDthesis.Europa‐

UniversitätViadrinaFrankfurt(Oder)[Online].Availableat:http://1.static.e‐

corpus.org/download/notice_file/849589/MuhleThese.pdf(Accessed:27

August2012).

Myers,N.(2009)'Performingtheproteinfold',inTurkle,S.(ed.)Simulationand

itsdiscontents.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Negri,A.&Hardt,M.(2000)Empire.Cambridge,Mass.andLondon:Harvard

UniversityPress.

Prigogine,I.&Stengers,I.(1984)Orderoutofchaos.Man'snewdialoguewith

nature.London:Heinemann.

Rabinow,P.(1992)'Artificialityandenlightenment:fromsociobiologyto

biosociality',inCrary,J.&Kwinter,S.(eds.)Incorporations.NewYork:Zone,234‐

252.

Rose,N.(2007)Politicsoflifeitself.Biomedicine,power,andsubjectivityinthe

twenty­firstcentury.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Savat,D.(2009)'Deleuze'sobjectile:fromdisciplinetomodulation',inPoster,M.

&Savat,D.(eds.)Deleuzeandnewtechnology.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversity

Press.

Shapin,S.&Schaffer,S.(1985)Leviathanandtheair­pump.Hobbes,Boyle,and

theexperimentallife.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

73

Stengers,I.(1997)Powerandinvention.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota

Press.

Vogl,J.(2004)'RegierungundRegelkreis.HistorischesVorspiel',inPias,C.(ed.)

Cybernetics­Kybernetik.TheMacyConferences1946­1953.BandIIEssaysund

Dokumente.ZürichandBerlin:Diaphanes,67‐80.

Wiener,N.(1989)Thehumanuseofhumanbeings.Cyberneticsandsociety.

London:FreeAssociation.