å Tuesday, November 10th, 2015

Fred Turner depicts the New Communalists as being a contingent oriented primarily on changing the socio-consciousness of the era rather than achieving the progressive and leftist political shifts that the New Left organized itself around. That the New Communalists embraced the innovations of cybernetic technology is not surprising to me though it seems like the language to distinguish these two groups, the New Communalists from the New Left, is steeped in pitting a seemingly radical yet debatably apolitical ethos against a social justice centered movement wedded to effecting systemic change. The New Communalists wanted to get rid of the hierarchical structure of power and communication whereas the New Left sought to augment the structure of the systems of power in place. Both groups were informed by the unease of the Post-World War II Nuclear age that arose in during Cold War era, however the New Left took a more traditional course of action through utilizing common political organizing tactics to confront the gross inequities that American Society was facing at that time – namely via the Civil Rights movement and Anti-Vietnam War activism. This type of action characterized the types of relationships to power and information that allowed for a type of communal basis within the New Left. The New Communalists were distrustful of everybody – the left, the right, the state, and activists that were aligned with changing the state.

To me the New Communalists have a Libertarian vibe – I could definitely see some intellectual and political thinking in common with both groups – as if the N.C. begat the Libertarian movement. I guess that makes sense though as the N.C. were enthusiastic adopters and supporters of the type of university – military – science collaborative efforts to develop new cybernetic technology – an interesting amalgam of state and secular systems united to essentially think outside of the box – even though these establishments are the “box”. I guess one of the main appeals is this sort of generalist approach that the scientists and technologists brought to the collaborative efforts – the notion of workflow is not dependent on staying in ones lane per se as much as it is concerned with exploratory and entrepreneurial spirit. This is the ethos that the New Communalists seemed to thrive off of – and the objective of their desire to be a part of a consciousness shifting movement. I do understand and sort of respect the culture war that it seems like the New Communalists are depicted by Turner as waging in their awe and adoption of cybernetic innovation as it relates to a new emerging way of being or consciousness not dependent on the static systems of power that determined access and mobility of information. But anytime anyone goes off the grid or seeks to create a community that is essentially separatist or seeking to sever ties with the society from which its discontent sprung, it’s difficult for me as an outsider to not have a skeptical take on their ideological platform.

The New Left appears sort of grumpy and luddite-like in Turner’s estimation – but I suppose this is just an assessment of other writer’s depictions of the social justice led movement. I gathered that the New Left was interested in breaking down the trifecta of information – knowledge power producing machine that was the academic/military/industrial complex. I bet folks from the New Left would have been on board with a redistribution of the fruits of that cybernetic rhetoric – but my guess is that the kind of political and activist work against structural racism and the war machine that was going on precluded them from gaining access to the vested interests of that trifecta.

Perhaps I’m just jaded but I also had the sense that the New Communalists were largely white artsy weirdoes. That’s the subtext I picked up on.

Fred Turner makes clear that though they are often confused and melded together, there are distinct differences between the counterculture, the New Left and the New Communalists, though all three wanted societal change. The counterculture was actually made of people with non-political, consciousness-altering, hedonistic, and introspective ideals. Those of the New Left were outwardly politically motivated Free Speech and Civil Rights activists who wanted to move away from the nuclear and militaristic technologies developed for WWII and the cold war. The New Communalists, named after the thousands of communes they formed between 1965 and 1972, removed themselves from mainstream society to form their own egalitarian societies and connect with one another by use of cold war era technology.

The activists of the New Left were motivated by their rejection of the cold war politics in which they were raised. They feared being part of the current government led bureaucratized society that created computer and nuclear technology through the joining together of military, industry, and academia – three areas that had always operated singularly prior to WWII yet continued to work together on military projects after WWII and into the cold war. But it was the developments that occurred on the path to creating the technology that was embraced by the New Communalists. For military research and civilian research to collaborate it meant that scientists not only had to cross into fields outside of their specialties, they also had to work together with different types of sciences toward common goals. They created never used before forms of networking, created new methods in academic and scientific language to communicate, and established social orders which inspired new ways of organizing information that was greatly shared and used outside of those specific military projects by other institutions and research laboratories. Though it was thought that government involvement would create a top-down social structure, in reality nonhierarchical social management occurred to establish realms of scientific collaboration of cybernetics and systems theory.

The New Communalists embraced these new ideas in collaboration and sharing inforation but rejected industrial-era technocratic bureaucracy. They pushed for social change not through politics like the New Left but through organized ways of thinking and networking, collaborating knowledge and information from one another in effort to reclaim the humanity in society.

On one side we have the New Left, who wanted to change the politics of the country completely. They too did not believe in a hierarchy or a “top-down flow of power” but they did believe that political action was necessary to see their civil rights and free speech movements of the time succeed. The New Left organized for political change which is a contrast from what we know about the New Communalists. Also, they used protests and demonstrations against industrial activities, bureaucratic organization of the universities and the Vietnam War.

Norbert Weiner’s definition of cybernetics as stated in the chapter is “a field focused on the ‘study of messages as a means of controlling machinery and society.'” Weiner also said that cybernetics “suggested that digital processes might lead to a malevolent automation of human and biological processes.”(2006:23) Cybernetics is a “transdisciplinary approach exploring regulatory systems, their structures, constraints, and possibilities.” (Wikipedia)

When looking at this definition at first I could not figure out how the “cybernetic vision of the world” correlated with what the New Communalists wanted. Then I looked it as not just technology, but processes and systems.

So on the other side we have New Communalists, or hippies as they were also known as, and they wanted to use a collaborative process where there was no hierarchy. Most of them wanted to go in places across America where they could create communes and live without the politics of the times. New Communalists saw politics as the problem that was effecting the country at the time. They wanted a less violent society and did not trust politicians or any form of hierarchy at all. They believed that the mind could produce the ideals that they wanted in this country and go into, what Charles Reich called, Consciousness III where “citizens would serve as examples to one another; the communities in turn would serve as examples to the world.” (2006:37) Basically, the individual’s information can be passed from person to person similar to how cybernetics works within a system or process.

I have to say, I don’t understand what any of this was talking about.  I was lost throughout this entire reading.  I didn’t understand the whole New left stuff, etc.  I have no understanding of/interest in the political sphere.  That being said, I will attempt to try to  wrest so sort of explanation of what I guess all of this was talking about.

The New Left represents the establishment and the old way of doing things.  This structure is based on a hierarchical power structure, with the power being focused at the top and being filtered down through established channels.  The New Left embraced the idea that through the use/vehicle of politics,  a change could be created in the way bureaucracy operated and transform people from individuals, into a collect force with a shared purpose.

The New Communalists, seemed to feel that bureaucracy was not the way in which the collective consciousness would be changed – rather, it would require an in depth integration of cybernetics and systems theory, as an alternative means/way to stabilize the social order through shared and the free flow of information through open communication.  The idea that a top-down hierarchy was not the most effective way to motive, stimulate and inspire  an environment where a solidarity was forged by the unrestricted flow of the information and communication through emotionally invested people.

Like I said, I don’t know if I am at all, on the right track, but this was the most sense I could glean from this reading.  I’m finding this readings and ideas are becoming increasingly abstract and that what they are trying to say is lost on the common reader.