Utopia in the Global Market.. Say Whaaat?

Interestingly enough, there are similarities between the science fiction representations of utopia and the globalized/ globalizing world in which we find ourselves. As stated utopias often have a supra-government that unites the people of many nations, and therefore has some measure of power and means of control. The ideal is that there is very little conflict but this is rarely the case. These things are present in the world today. Hardt and Negri point them out in "Empire." First are the controlling forces of the world. The global entity of control as pointed out is the world market or the empire of the dollar. All countries are subject to its control by the fact that they can be shut off from it. therefore no money is coming in and they must try to make do with what they have. This can be hard when all you have is production of goods that are non-essential. Second is the control of on a much more individual basis. Hardt and Negri use the ideas of a society of control and biopolitical power, found in Foucault's work, to explain this which also functions as a main tie to education. The society of control is very important because of it's functions. First, being a society, it teaches us how to act within the world. Second, the society of control teaches us by regulating what is acceptable and what is not. unique about the society of control is that it is expressed almost entirely through the social field, in the actions and reaction of the individuals within the society. This makes the controlling systems very fluid and flexible. There is no set "in" and "out." instead these are defined by the people in the moment. The ways in which this control is exercised is located in our communication systems. For example, Facebook allows anyone to post almost any thought that they like. But what stops people from posting comments in support of genocide? Well there are two things that normally stop people. First is Facebook itself. Being a single organization that has a lot of control over how people communicate with others because society has given them that power. The second is society itself. If someone were to post some horrific comment the others who see that comment are able, and usually willing, to instantly respond (positively and negatively) or to shun that person. Therefore the control and discipline of people is largely left in the hands of individuals. This leads Hardt and Negri to say "The society of control might thus be characterized by an intensification and generalization of the normalizing apparatuses of disciplinarity that internally animate our common and daily practices, but in contrast to discipline, this control extends well outside the structured sites of social institutions through flexible and fluctuating networks"