This effort, which Americans have supported almostfrom the beginning of the national existence and which is oneof the cornerstones of our democratic way of life, has hadremarkable results.

The current mass media such as t elevision, books, and magazines are one-directional, and are produced by a centralized process. This can be positive, since respected editors can filter material to ensure consistency and high quality, but more widely accessible narrowcasting to specific audiences could enable livelier decentralized discussions. Democratic processes for presenting opposing views, caucusing within factions, and finding satisfactory compromises are productive for legislative, commercial, and scholarly pursuits.

Your first thought might be denial: you can’t mean that grades are evil banalities?

Rough and unhospitabl

Toputitbluntly,fromourperspective,popularcriticshavebecometooconcernedaboutcyberspacecreatingobedientsubjectstopowerratherthanunderstandingthatcyberspaceiscreatingsubmissivesubjectsofpowerwhoarepotentiallycapableofsubversion.

Despitetheirdifferences,theydogenerallyshareanimaginaryofcitizensubjectsasalreadyformedassubjectsofsubmission,wheretheirparticipationisamatterofaccess,skills,andusage.Itisanimaginaryofacitizenasasubjectwhoisoftensubmissive(ifnotobedient)andisactiveonlyinwaysrecognizedbygovernmentpoliciesandprogrammes.Alleffortsareaimedatdiscipliningsubjectsalongdigitalinclusionscalesthroughactionsthatinvolveaccess,skills,motivation,andtrust.Itisthroughrepetitionthattheseactionsbecomeembodiedandthroughwhichcitizensubjectsbecomegovernable.Digitalinclusionthusplacesdemandsonthecitizensubjecttouptaketheseactions,tobeskilledandtooled,andtolearnandbecomeknowledgeableandcompetentinlookingafterherselfandgoverninghersocialneeds

Forus,thisalsomeansthatactsoftruthaffordpossibilitiesofsubversion.Beingasubjectofpowermeansrespondingtothecall‘howshouldone“governoneself”byperformingactionsinwhichoneisoneselftheobjectiveofthoseactions,thedomaininwhichtheyarebroughttobear,theinstrumenttheyemploy,andthesubjectthatacts?’[14]Indescribingthisashisapproach,Foucaultwasclearthatthe‘developmentofadomainofacts,practices,andthoughts’posesaproblemforpolitics.[15]ItisinthisrespectthatweconsidertheInternetinrelationtomyriadacts,practices,andthoughtsthatposeaproblemforthepoliticsofthesubjectincontemporarysocieties.

Whatdistinguishesthecitizenfromthesubjectisthatthecitizenisthiscompositesubjectofobedience,submission,andsubversion.Thebirthofthecitizenasasubjectofpowerdoesnotmeanthedisappearanceofthesubjectasasubjecttopower.Thecitizensubjectembodiestheseformsofpowerinwhichsheisimplicated,whereobedience,submission,andsubversionarenotseparatedispositionsbutarealways-presentpotentialities.

Butthesearenotpureforms;rather,thecitizensubjectembodiestheseaspotentialities.Beingasubjecttopowerismarkedbythecitizen’sdominationbythesovereign,andherrightsderivefromthatwhichisgiventoherbythe(patriarchal)sovereign.Beingasubjectofpowermeansbeinganagentofpower,evenifthisrequiressubmission.

If the panopticon effect is when you don’t know if you are being watched or not, and so you behave as if you are, then the inverse panopticon effect is when you know you are being watched but act as if you aren’t. This is today’s surveillance culture: exhibitionism in bad faith.