Pierre de Vries, “The Evolution of FCC Lobbying Coalitions”
source: The Journal of Social Structure | DeVries
This is from Volume 10. Its contents are not yet posted to the JOSS web site, but the directory for the issue is wide-open. Go figure.
At the bottom is Peer Review Comment No. 1.
This visualization captures the formal connections between lobbying organizations in the fight over telephone transfer fees. This representation suggests that the companies lobbying the most, or the most well connected, are not necessarily the most structurally important, or the most influential. Smaller companies can play important lobbying roles if they connect particular lobbying subgroups to each other. This visualization offers a clean picture of the lobbying network but provides little information about the companies: perhaps a different color scheme, combinations of shapes, or more exaggerated node sizes could have told a clearer story about the kinds of companies playing different roles.
Suggested point; discussions about WikiLeaks, and about other internet-centered phenomena, inhabit the various levels discussants are able to utilize.
There are, aside from discussions themselves, all the mediums and modalities that serve to capture the language of descriptions and explanations and operating mechanics, etc..
So, how do we wish to speak of, for example, WikiLeaks, today? In effect from what system of awareness do we wish to view those other systems of awareness, each of which is not necessarily discrete from one another?
(Yup, been revisiting Gregory for the last three months.)
Very crudely put, how do we locate diverse effects of a document dump into the public domain within the means for consideration of those effects? For example, how would one bring to bear on this, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and, to clump together more fuzzy social science, political-economics?
I would extend this thought problem (posing as an invitation,) to studying the internet itself. Which is to suggest how do we choose to wrap are head around the unfolding social-political-economic development discoverable in the mash up of communicative and performative modalities given by cyberspace?
And, we understand the development and articulation of individual perspectives happens within the particularities of the context our individual awareness gives up.
Then there are all those spun discourses which obtain some gravity in ‘one scheme of things’ yet are, so-to-speak, the part objects of much more complex schemes and meta-schemes. For example, we can learn that Assange is a horny meglomaniacal anarchist with a messianic mission to embarrass the powers-that-be in the U.S. and West. Maybe he’s a hero depending how one contextualizes and defines heroism.
However, my suggestion here is: meanwhile sophisticated networks such as the one depicted in the above social network map, are working 24-7 to obtain goals likely more complex and with weighty ‘effects’ which are more–how shall I put it–subtle than ’embarrassment.’