Kelty—Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics

Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics

by Chris Kelty

[Kelty, Christopher. 2005. “Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics.” Cultural Anthropology 20 (2): 185–214.]

Points

Recursive public

  • “a group constituted by a shared, profound concern for the technical and legal conditions of possibility for their own association” (185)
  •  “a group of individuals who, more often than not, only associate with each other because of a shared concern for the conditions of possibility of their own association (i.e., the Internet)” (205)

Social Imaginaries

  • “ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (Taylor 2002: 106)

Ethnography of Geeks

  • Geeks embrace a “Stop talking and show me the code” attitude, wherein discourse takes place both verbally and through the writing and implementation of code.
  • Geek folklore of the Internet—that it senses danger and routs around it; that once something is on the Internet, it will never not be—portrays an inevitability [ex. The singularity]
  • Geek culture rallies around a rhetoric of ‘openness’ that directly acts against strictures and censorship

ABSTRACT

This article investigates the social, technical, and legal affiliations among “geeks” (hackers, lawyers, activists, and IT entrepreneurs) on the Internet. The mode of association specific to this group is that of a “recursive public sphere” constituted by a shared imaginary of the technical and legal conditions of possibility for their own association. On the basis of fieldwork conducted in the United States, Europe, and India, I argue that geeks imagine their social existence and relations as much through technical practices (hacking, networking, and code writing) as through discursive argument (rights, identities, and relations). In addition, they consider a “right to tinker” a form of free speech that takes the form of creating, implementing, modifying, or using specific kinds of software (especially Free Software) rather than verbal discourse.

Annotation Summary for: Kelty – Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” This nexus of technology and politics is where the fieldwork described in thisarticle took place, focusing on a distinct social group whose defining characteristicis recursive in nature: a group constituted by a shared, profound concern for thetechnical and legal conditions of possibility for their own association. I call thismode of association a “recursive public”; the people who participate in it will bereferred to as “geeks”; and the Internet is the condition of their association.1 ”

Page 1, Underline (Magenta): Content: ” group constituted by a shared, profound concern for thetechnical and legal conditions of possibility for their own association”

Page 1, Highlight (Yellow): Content: ““recursive public”;”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “un- derstand the Internet as a contest. It is neither stable nor single but is constantly being rewritten and recompiled according to diverse, partially shared, shifting, and incomplete objectives, not only by individuals but also by corporations, gov- ernments, and universities.”

Page 1, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY,Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 185–214,”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “the notion of a recursive public, a particular formof social imaginary through which this group imagines in common the means of their own association, the material forms this imagination takes, and what place it has in the contemporary development of the Internet.2”

Page 2, Underline (Red): Content: “Charles Taylor, Michael Warner, and Jurgen Habermas,”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Charles Taylor, Michael Warner, and Jurgen Habermas, each in his own way, havesuggested that the public, or public sphere, can be thought of as one example of asocial imaginary. Social imaginaries are neither strictly ideas nor strictly insti-tutions but “ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fittogether with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the ex-pectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and imagesthat underlie these expectations.” Such imaginaries are not static but are “schema-tized in the dense sphere of common practice” and subject to something like adialectical transformation (Taylor 2002:106).”

Page 2, Highlight (Yellow): Content: “Social imaginaries”

Page 2, Underline (Magenta): Content: ” neither strictly ideas nor strictly insti-tutions but “ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fittogether with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the ex-pectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and imagesthat underlie these expectations.””

Page 2, Underline (Red): Content: ” (Taylor 2002:106).”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “software creation itself represents a certain immanent critique of the very distinction between speech and practice and thus requires a more careful ethnographic analysis.”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The notion of a recursive public as a social imaginary specific to the Inter- net draws together technical practices of coding and designing with social and philosophical concepts of publics to highlight specific contemporary ideas of so- cial or moral order that just as often take the form of argument-by-technology as they take the form of deliberative spoken or written discussion.”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “When geeks argue, they argue about rights and reasons, but they also argue about the Internet as the technical structure and legal rules that allowthemto argue in the first place.”

Page 2, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “techniques and design principles that are used to create software or to implement networking protocols cannot be distinguished fromideas or principles of social and moral order for these informants.”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “commitment toopenness bears some similarity to J. S. Mill’s version of a liberal polity in which all ideas are allowed to circulate because it strengthens and highlights the best ones.”

Page 3, Underline (Red): Content: “J. S. Mill’s”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “If your opinion (software implemen-tation) is heard, critiqued, refined and reasserted—just as Mill proposed—then thebest (the truest) opinion will win out. This process will be explored here in thecontext of the core protocols of the Internet and the process for standardizing themin Requests for Comments (RFCs).”

Page 3, Note (Orange): Like otherkin questions in an intro

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In this article, both argument-by-technology and discursive argument are fol- lowed to trace how openness exists simultaneously in both forms: first, as the rhetoric and ideas espoused by individuals who work on, care about, have respon- sibility for, or otherwise see themselves as involved in the Internet; and second, as the real technical and legal structure that the Internet may take at a particular moment in time.”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Geeks are described in detail here not to characterize them as a culture but because they provide a particularly rich route to understanding the new technical and legal forms of affiliation and practice that humans and their devices engage in—that is, this analysis includes in social life the technical relations of nonhuman as well as human actors.6”

Page 3, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “This article therefore treats the Internet not only as a network in this science- studies-derived sense—a technical and social assemblage whose formconsists in the constantly changing relations amongst humans and nonhumans (see Law2002 for a similar approach)—but also as a real network whose particular technical and legal forms can be shown to have an impact on how these abstract relations are constituted or transformed.”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” How are shared ideas filtered through particular technical andlegal structures that both constrain and make possible new forms of affiliationand challenge existing understandings of political life? How are these technicaland legal structures the products as well as the targets of groups who imagine incommon a particular mode of association and political speech? ”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “the aim in this article is to track argument-by-technology for what it reveals about critique within contests about control over the means of discourse and about the shifting line between speech and technology.”

Page 4, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In what follows, I analyze the arguments that geeks offer about their technical practice in relation to the concepts of public sphere and social imaginaries by exploring a particular set of discussions about the technical and legal constitution of the Internet.”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In the conclusion, I assess how the notion of social imaginaries can be extended in light of these technical and legal issues.”

Page 5, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Geeks I Have Known”

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “One particularly successful point of contact was a mailing list run by Udhay called Silk List, an irregular, unmoderated list devoted to “intelligent conversation.”Fromananthropological standpoint, thekindof material collected in this list (more than 10,000 messages as of 2003) is a treasure.”

Page 7, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Active participants usually number about 10–15, whereas many more may lurk in the background.”

Page 8, Underline (Red): Content: “Howard Rheingold The Virtual Community,”

Page 8, Underline (Red): Content: “John Perry Barlow, Wired magazine,”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Like many similar communities of “digerati” during and after the dot.com boom, Silk List constituted itself more or less organically around people who “got it”—that is, people who claimed to understand the Internet, its transformative potential, and who had the technical skills to participate in its expansion.”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “these particular geeks are not representative of everyone who cares about or works onthe Internet, andtheydonot standinfor anyone groupsuch as hackers, coders, engineers, activists, computer nerds, cypherpunks, bloggers, or sysadmins (although there is at least one of each in the group).13”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Although the term geek bears much weight in defining the object of study in this case, this is not an ethnography of geeks.14”

Page 8, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Only one significant quality is shared by all of the geeks represented here: they are a public constituted through a shared sense of concern for the technical and legal conditions of possibility of their own association.”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The members of Silk List are therefore a very specific set of informants for understanding the functioning of immanent technical critique in contemporary contests over the Internet and its future.”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The Summer of Napster”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “A message was posted to Silk List on July 27, 2000, by Eugen Leitl with the subject line “Prelude to the Singularity.””

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Popular folklore has it that the Internet was designed with decentralized routing pro- tocols in order to withstand a nuclear attack. That is, the Internet “senses damage” and “routes around it.” It has been said that, on the ‘Net, censorship is perceived as damage and is subsequently routed around. There is no doubt that this will happen, and that technology will evolve more quickly than businesses and social institutions can; there are numerous highly- visible projects already underway that attempt to create technology that is invulnerable to legal challenges of various kinds.”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “For many geeks, Napster represented the Internet in miniature—an innovation that both demonstrated something on a scope and scale never seen before and that also connected people according to what they most cared about.”

Page 9, Underline (Red): Content: “Vernor Vinge”

Page 9, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ““singularity”—a point in history when the speed of technology change overcomes the ability of humans to adapt to it, understand it, or more importantly, to stop it (Vinge 1993).”

Page 9, Highlight (Yellow): Content: ” “singularity””

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “This notion of singularity is not always referred to by geeks as merely science fiction but rather as a law of sorts, such as Moore’s law, Metcalf’s law, and many other so-called laws that make up the social theories of Internet geeks.17”

Page 10, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “although this message was written as an “op-ed” piece on the issues surrounding the RIAA and Napster, it was not published anywhere The fact that it was written and circulated as a potential op-ed piece, however, brings up an interesting methodological point: this material rests somewhere between private conversation and published opinion. No editor”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “made a decision to “publish” this message. However, as with any print publication,it is potentially accessible by anyone. ”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In terms of addressing or being addressed in a public sphere, the difference is in this radical openness. On the one hand, constraints on who speaks in a public sphere (such as the power of printers and publishers, the requirements of licensing, or issues of cost and accessibility) are much looser here than in any previous era—it gives a previously unknown Jeff Bone the power to dash off a manifesto without so much as a second thought. On the other hand, the ease of distribution belies the difficulty of being heard—the massive number of other Jeff Bones makes the issue of being heard much more difficult.”

Page 11, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” bits of folklore are widely circulated and cited; theyencapsulateoneof thecoreintellectual ideas about thearchitectureof theInternet—that is, its open and distributed connectivity. In the early 1990s, it was part of avery vibrant libertarian dogma asserting that the Internet simply could not begoverned by any land-based sovereign and that it was fundamentally a place ofliberty and freedom. This was the central message of people such as John PerryBarlow, John Gilmore, Howard Rheingold, Esther Dyson, and a host of others whopopulated both the pre-1993 Internet (before the World Wide Web became widelyavailable) and the pages of magazines such as Wired and Mondo 2000″

Page 12, Underline (Red): Content: “Lawrence Lessig,”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “although it may be true that no one can make the Internet “closed” by passing a law, it is also true that the Internet can become closed if the technology were to be altered for that purpose; a process that may well be nudged and guided by laws and regulations.”

Page 12, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The notion of “running code” is central to an understanding of the rela- tionship between argument-by-technology and argument-by-talk for geeks. Very”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “commonly, the response to people who spoke about the summer of Napster—and the courts’ decisions regarding it—was to dismiss their complaints as mere talk. Many people suggested that if Napster were shut down, thousands more programs like it would spring up in its wake. As one mailing list participant, Ashish “Hash” Gulhati, put it: When it comes to fighting this shitin a way that counts, everything that isn’t code is just talk.23”

Page 13, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Geeks tend to see technical solutions to problems as trumping all legal ritual; it is an attitude of “shut up and show me the code.””

Page 14, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “For the first 20 years, Internet protocols were contained primarily in documents called “Requests for Comments” (RFCs) circulated to Internet members and managed by the IETF and later the Internet Society.”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Social Imaginaries after the Internet Charles Taylor (2004), building on Habermas (1989) and Warner (1990), suggests that the social imaginary of the public sphere that emerged in the 18th century was created through a set of transformed practices of communication and association that reflected a particular kind of moral order.”

Page 15, Underline (Red): Content: “Charles Taylor Habermas Warner”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Contrary to the experience of bodies coming together into a common space (Taylor calls them “topical spaces,” inwhichconversation, ritual, andassemblytake place), the crucial component was that the public sphere: transcends such topical spaces. We might say that it knits a plurality of spaces into one larger spaceof non-assembly. Thesamepublicdiscussionis deemedtopass throughour debate today, and someone else’s earnest conversation tomorrow, and the newspaper interview Thursday and so on. …The public sphere that emerges in the eighteenth century is a meta-topical common space. [Taylor 2004:86]”

Page 15, Underline (Magenta): Content: “Contrary to the experience of bodies coming together into a common space (Taylor calls them “topical spaces,” inwhichconversation, ritual, andassemblytake place), the crucial component was that the public sphere: transcends such topical spaces. We might say that it knits a plurality of spaces into one larger spaceof non-assembly. Thesamepublicdiscussionis deemedtopass throughour debate today, and someone else’s earnest conversation tomorrow, and the newspaper interview Thursday and so on. …The public sphere that emerges in the eighteenth century is a meta-topical common space. [Taylor 2004:86]”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Warner offers a specification of the practical nature of today’s publics by distinguishing the imagination of the public from particular publics (and counterpublics).”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Warner suggests that the idea of a social totalityindicatedbythepublic(i.e., asocial imaginary) is quitedifferent from a specific instantiation (a public).”

Page 15, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “However, Warner is careful to note the circularity implied in the process of a public coming into being. To be part of a particular public is to choose to pay attention to those who choose to address those who choose to pay attention . . . and so on. Or as Warner puts it, “The circularity is”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “essential to the phenomenon.”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Silk List and similar forums can be understood as particular publics, and as I have tried to demonstrate, by detailing their shared concern for protocols, implementations, and the openness of the infrastructure in which they address each other and pay attention to each other, they are a recursive public—they address each other by addressing the very means (the Internet) of address itself.”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “In Warner’s examples, publics”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” push on the limits of what is “properly” public in some contextor another”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Geeks are engagedina similar activity, but the rules theypush onare the technical protocols andstandards that allowthemtospeakabout anything at all (whether properlypublic inWarner’s sense or not).”

Page 16, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “For geeks, the “address” as suchis what interests themfirst, not the particular content of anaddress, andsothey turn to technical and legal activities that concern the conditions of possibility of address.”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Taylor suggests that a social imaginary is not a theory but a set of stories and narratives that are indistinguishable frompractice. However, he gives little sense of what these stories and practices do or what makes themmeaningful.”

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “The folklore of the Internet—of sensing damage and routing around it, of a history of rough consensus and running code—are stories about the practices of creating code and protocols.”

Page 17, Underline (Magenta): Content: “The folklore of the Internet—of sensing damage and routing around it, of a history of rough consensus and running code—are stories about the practices of creating code and protocols.”

Page 17, Stamp (Star (Frame, Red))

Page 17, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “geeks share an imagination of what society or sociality is: it includes the technically mediated software and networks that undergird our connectedness as much as it does any classic formulation of family, kin, nation, or corporate connection.”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” nonrecursive public such as a newspaper”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “neither newspapers nor their readers consider it even remotely possible that the public discussion they facilitate (the newspaper itself) should be open to transformation or reformulation directly by that public.”

Page 18, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” The difference is that these organizations “possess” powerin this strict sense of the right to decide. The Internet, as it exists today, is notstructured this way. No single entity or group can prevent the system from beingchanged fromwithin. ”

Page 19, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Conclusion”

Page 19, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Charles Taylor argues that what made the social imaginary of the publicsphere so powerful and successful in the 18th century was its status as: “a space ofdiscussion that is self-consciously seen as being outside of power.”

Page 19, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ” As Habermas (1989) described them, the practicesthat make up this extrapolitical space came about through the partic- ular material and media formations of bourgeois society in 18th-century Europe”

Page 19, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Michael Warner argues that it is self-organization through discourse that gives a public its power:”

Page 19, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “Rather than simply regaling ourselves with stories of the evolution of technol-ogy (fromostensive gesture to grunt to papyrus to print to cyberspace), the notionof a recursive public asks us to see the development of these tools inversely—asmeaningful precisely because of the stories we tell about them and the ways inwhich we seek to implement them. Rather than treat the Internet as one of a longstring of technologies that either constrain or liberate the voices of humans whoseek to affirmor deny old values, the recursive public treats the Internet as a con-test, the outcome of which will structure the very meaning and instantiation ofboth old and new values. ”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “the concept of a recursive public suggests that we ask what kind of relationship exists when governments, corporations, and other institutions provide people with a means to speak, write, or think with each other Does the shape and governance of the means of discourse also shapethe discourse itself? What does it mean for any organization large enough to create and define effectively the character and possibility of address?”

Page 20, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “As I have learned from geeks, structures of communication are not inevitable, given, or neutral; for any public to become a sovereign entity in contemporary technical societies, it must be recursive.”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “for being arcane, geeks are no less a public—resolutely self-organized, independent of state, corporation, or church. The specificity of this recursive public’s engagement with the Internet allows outside observers to see not just how people relate “on” the Internet but that the Internet itself is, at any given moment in time, a process of political contest.”

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: ““re- cursive public,” by which I mean a group of individuals who, more often than not, only associate with each other because of a shared concern for the conditions of possibility of their own association (i.e., the Internet).”

Page 21, Highlight (Yellow): Content: ““re- cursive public,””

Page 21, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “2. On social imaginaries, I rely in particular on two authors: Charles Taylor (2002, 2004) and Michael Warner (2002a; 2002b). The social imaginary concept seems to have”

Page 21, Underline (Red): Content: “Charles Taylor (2002, Michael Warner (2002a; 2002b).”

Page 22, Highlight (Cyan): Content: “a gloriously promiscuous paternity, even within the special issue cited above. Taylor cites Benedict Anderson (1991) as the source of the notion, although others refer to it as Taylor’s own.”

Page 22, Underline (Magenta): Content: “5. There is by now a very wide range of research that might be lumped together under the heading of “anthropology of the Internet” but probably evokes instead the famed Chinese encyclopedia of Borges: overviews and general monographs (Escobar 1994; Fischer 1999; Hakken 1999; Miller and Slater 2000; Wilson and Peterson 2002); studies of particular on-line communities (Hine 2000; Ito et al. 2001; Lysloff 2003; Slater 2002); critiques of “site” and of “virtuality” (Helmreich 2003; Ito 1996; Marcus 1996; Miller and Slater 2000; Woolgar 2002); archaeological studies of high technology (Finn 2001); studies of “chat” (Cherny 1999); calls for an “institutional” treatment of the Internet (Agre 1998; Mansell 2002); mermaids and pirates (Ludlow 2001); ethnographies that have nothing to do with the Internet but make use of it as a source or site in medical and biomedical anthropology (Franklin and Locke 2003; Novas and Rose 2000; Rapp et al. 2001) and in studies of social movements (Cleaver 1998; Ronfeldt and Arquilla 1998; Zaloom2003); provocative and wide-ranging books that tremble as if they were mad (Lovink 2002); innumerable geographical and political economic analyses (Bimber 2003; Crampton 2003; Everard 2000; Mosco 2004; Saco 2002); fabulous ones (Berry et al. 2003; Gottlieb and McLelland 2003); and studies that look like Kierkegaard froma great distance (Dreyfus 2001).”

Page 25, Underline (Red): Content: “Anderson, Benedict R. O. G. 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Routledge.”

Page 26, Underline (Red): Content: “Callon, Michel 1986 Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St-Brieuc Bay. In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? John Law, ed. Pp. 196–233. London: Routledge. Callon, Michel. ed. 1998 The Laws of the Markets. Oxford: Blackwell. Coleman, Gabriella, and Alex Golub N. d. Toward a Theory of Hacker Ethical Practice. Unpublished MS, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago (on file with author).”

Page 27, Underline (Red): Content: “Escobar, Arturo 1994 Welcome to Cyberia: Notes on the Anthropology of Cyberculture. Current An- thropology 35(3):211–231.”

Page 27, Underline (Red): Content: “Habermas, J¨urgen 1989 The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.”

Page 27, Underline (Red): Content: “Hine, Christine 2000 Virtual Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.”

Page 28, Underline (Red): Content: “Latour, Bruno 1987 Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Philadelphia: Open University Press. On Recalling ANT. In Actor Network Theory and After. John Law and John 1999a Hassard, eds. Pp. 15–25. Oxford: Blackwell. 1999b Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.”

Page 28, Underline (Red): Content: “Lovink, Geert 2002 Dark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.”

Page 28, Underline (Red): Content: “Mosco, Vincent 2004 The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.”

Page 29, Underline (Red): Content: “Taylor, Charles 2002 Modern Social Imaginaries. Public Culture 14(1):91–124. 2004 Modern Social Imaginaries. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.”

Page 29, Underline (Red): Content: “Turkle, Sherry 1984 The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit. New York: Simon andSchuster. 1995 Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Warner, Michael 1990 The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth- Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2002a Publics and Counterpublics. Public Culture 14(1): 49–90. 2002b Publics and Counterpublics. New York: Zone Books.”

Page 29, Underline (Red): Content: “Vinge, Vernor 1993 The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era. Electronic document, http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html, accessed December 1, 2003.”

Page 29, Underline (Red): Content: “Woolgar, Steve, ed. 2002 Virtual society?: Technology, Cyberbole, Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s