“The network” is a paradigm that dominates contemporary thought. Whether communicational, economic, political or computation, the concept of the network is regularly used to explain relationships between objects. The ontology of the network is heavily contested, and the political consequences are, at times, dire. Manuel Castells and Antonio Negri each argue for a networked form of communicational politics, but use reasonably different concepts of “power”. By accounting for the differences between these authors the tensions can be made apparent, and, more importantly, the political limits for each model become clear.
AgambenG. (2009). What is an apparatus?Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
2.
BaranP. (1964). On distributed communications: VII the multiplexing station. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.
3.
BoltanskiL.ChiapelloE. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism (Trans. ElliottG.). London: Verso.
4.
CastellsM. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
5.
CastellsM. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. International Journal of Communication, 1, 238–266.
6.
CastellsM. (2009). Communication power. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
CastellsM. (2011). A network theory of power,International Journal of Communication, 5, 773–787.
8.
CastellsM. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
DeleuzeG. (1992). Postscript on the societies of control,October, 59, 3–7.
10.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus. London: Continuum.
11.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.
12.
FoucaultM. (1978). History of Sexuality Vol. 1: An Introduction. Penguin Books.
13.
FoucaultM. (1980). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.
14.
FoucaultM. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
15.
FuchsC. (2009). Some reflections on Manuel Castells’ book “Communication Power”,tripleC, 7(1), 94–108.
16.
FuchsC. (2012). Some reflections on Manuel Castells’ book “Networks of outrage and hope. Social movements in the internet age”,tripleC, 10(2), 775–797.
17.
GolumbiaD. (2009). The cultural logic of computation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
HardtM.NegriA. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
HardtM.NegriA. (2009). Commonwealth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
LashS. (2002). Critique of information. London: SAGE.
21.
LatourB. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
MarxK. (1973). Grundrisse. London: Penguin.
23.
NegriA. (1991). The Savage Anomaly: The power of Spinoza’s metaphysics and politics. (HardtM., Trans.). Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press.
24.
NegriA. (1996). Constituent republic. In VirnoP.HardtM. (Eds), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (pp. 213–222). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
25.
NegriA. (1999). Insurgencies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
26.
NegriA. (2007). Art and culture in the age of empire and the time of the multitudes,SubStance, 36(1), 48–55.
27.
NegriA. (2008). Reflections on empire. Cambridge: Polity.
28.
NegriA. (2009). Labor of job. London: Duke University Press.
29.
SchmittC. (2005). Political theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
TillyC. (2003). A Nebulous Empire. In BalakrishnanG. (Ed.), Debating Empire (pp. 26–28). London: Verso.
31.
TrontiM. (2007). The strategy of refusal. In LotringerS.MarazziC. (Eds), Autonomia: Post-political politics (pp. 28–35). Cambridge, MA: Semiotext(e).
