Simply put, the answer to the question “what is the sociopolitical meaning of the spirit of networks?” is twofold. First, the spirit of networks is the discursive “facilitating shell” (Fraser 2003), the “cultural logic” (Jameson 1991), or the legitimation discourse of post-Fordist society. The spirit of networks is understood in this book not simply as a description of contemporary techno-capitalism but also as central to the constitution of the novel ways of life, institutional arrangements, and social power relations that it entails. The spirit of networks is central to how contemporary life is understood, experienced, and practiced. It is the connective tissue between two key transformations of the last four decades: the shift to a post-Fordist society and the rise of network technology. It is the discourse that legitimates and enables these transformations.
A N<sub>E</sub>W TRAD<sub>E</sub>-OFF B<sub>E</sub>TW<sub>EE</sub>N A<sub>L</sub>I<sub>E</sub>NATION AND EXP<sub>L</sub>OITATION
Second, the spirit of networks has been constructed as a response to the humanist critique of Fordist society. It transcends the technological, institutional, and social pitfalls that prevailed during Fordism—which were the subject of the humanist critique—and therefore marks a watershed in the shift of legitimation function of technology discourse from Fordism to post-Fordism. During the Fordist phase of capitalism, technological discourse gave legitimation to a socioeconomic regime of accumulation that responded to a social critique of capitalism while it downplayed, and even ignored, the humanist critique. Industrial technology, the assembly line, the bureaucratic corporation, the statist regulation of the economy, and the provision of welfare were all conceived in the technology discourse during Fordism as technologies and techniques that respond to concerns put forth by the social critique, such as the need for social security, stability, and equality, that is, those geared toward mitigating exploitation.
The critique of Fordism, to which the spirit of networks responds, therefore, targets precisely the oppressive nature of the administered state and the bureaucratic corporation, the loss of personal authenticity, and the deeroticization of the productive process, that is, the harmful ramifications of Fordism in terms of alienation. Their amelioration has, in fact, become the centerpiece of the spirit of networks that emerges in the post-Fordist phase of capitalism. With post-Fordism, technological discourse has come to legitimate a new socioeconomic regime that responds to the humanist critique of capitalism while it downplays the social critique. Network technology, the lean and flexible corporation, and flexible modes of employment and production are all conceived in the discourse on network technology during post-Fordism as technologies that respond to concerns put forth by the humanist critique, such as the need for individual empowerment, authenticity, and creativity, that is, those geared toward mitigating alienation.
Networks as the Techno-political Culture of Post-Fordism
217