AdAptAtion As ConneCtion
51
necessary elements of cultural evolution. It gives weight to cultural functions, contexts, and contingency, thus taking agency away from individual
authors and instead empowering other human and non-human actors in
the complex web of retellings and remediations. One may even claim that
networks of adaptations are self-organizing, that they function without
central authority or control. However, that does not mean that networks
are inherently democratic structures. Although agency is distributed in
networks, it is not necessarily distributed equally. Networks show specific
power laws and despite their connectivity, they are not totally inclusive. In
containing an ambivalent tension between connection and disconnection,
between net and the “in-between, […] the not-net,” 66 and fundamentally
operating on the “binary logic” of “inclusion/exclusion,” 67 networks can
suggest highly conflicting notions of both belonging and separation, of
unity and fragmentation, of anxiety and fascination.
Similarly, the question of how power is distributed in convergence culture
cannot easily be answered. Both evolution and the network are models
that are often associated with “organic” structures and processes. In many
respects, it makes sense to regard literature and culture as equally vibrant
systems that evolve in a creative and often unexpected way. However, we
need to be careful not to naturalize adaptation processes. Both production
and reception processes rely largely on the centralized efforts of human
subjectivity as well as on intersubjective modes of social, cultural, and
communal recognition. Stories only tell themselves to a certain extent. Storytelling itself is intricately connected with the human need to understand
and structure the world. As long as humans ascribe meaning to stories, all
narrative processes will be directed, organized, and evaluated by human
beings. What is more, power resides not only in the collective intelligence
of a bottom up participatory culture, but also or even largely in the hands
of corporations involved in the production and dissemination of culture.
The United States, in particular, displays a paradox between a culture often
associated with a proclivity to decentralized structures, participation, and
what I would consider a Pragmatist notion of instrumental adaptation, while
at the same time depending largely on the power of media corporations.
In my argument I have not focused on the politics of adaptations that are,
of course, more complex than the label “participatory” suggests. At this
point, let me only briefly mention some of the problematic aspects of the
decentralized logic of Web 2.0 participation without going into the nuances
66 Böhme, “Einführung: Netzwerke,” 21, my translation.
67 Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society,” 4.
51
necessary elements of cultural evolution. It gives weight to cultural functions, contexts, and contingency, thus taking agency away from individual
authors and instead empowering other human and non-human actors in
the complex web of retellings and remediations. One may even claim that
networks of adaptations are self-organizing, that they function without
central authority or control. However, that does not mean that networks
are inherently democratic structures. Although agency is distributed in
networks, it is not necessarily distributed equally. Networks show specific
power laws and despite their connectivity, they are not totally inclusive. In
containing an ambivalent tension between connection and disconnection,
between net and the “in-between, […] the not-net,” 66 and fundamentally
operating on the “binary logic” of “inclusion/exclusion,” 67 networks can
suggest highly conflicting notions of both belonging and separation, of
unity and fragmentation, of anxiety and fascination.
Similarly, the question of how power is distributed in convergence culture
cannot easily be answered. Both evolution and the network are models
that are often associated with “organic” structures and processes. In many
respects, it makes sense to regard literature and culture as equally vibrant
systems that evolve in a creative and often unexpected way. However, we
need to be careful not to naturalize adaptation processes. Both production
and reception processes rely largely on the centralized efforts of human
subjectivity as well as on intersubjective modes of social, cultural, and
communal recognition. Stories only tell themselves to a certain extent. Storytelling itself is intricately connected with the human need to understand
and structure the world. As long as humans ascribe meaning to stories, all
narrative processes will be directed, organized, and evaluated by human
beings. What is more, power resides not only in the collective intelligence
of a bottom up participatory culture, but also or even largely in the hands
of corporations involved in the production and dissemination of culture.
The United States, in particular, displays a paradox between a culture often
associated with a proclivity to decentralized structures, participation, and
what I would consider a Pragmatist notion of instrumental adaptation, while
at the same time depending largely on the power of media corporations.
In my argument I have not focused on the politics of adaptations that are,
of course, more complex than the label “participatory” suggests. At this
point, let me only briefly mention some of the problematic aspects of the
decentralized logic of Web 2.0 participation without going into the nuances
66 Böhme, “Einführung: Netzwerke,” 21, my translation.
67 Castells, “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society,” 4.