Well there it is directly and Sven is if nothing else consistent, inclined
(much as the fawning courtier inclines toward the sun king) toward power.
There is something lovely about these coltishly transparent early days of
technologies: the computer is a theatre of longings and within it power
relationships which in print culture have become transparent suddenly
reappear as clearly as the shadows they are. Sven doesn’t trust (himself?).
We differ here exactly. First because I do not believe that there is a mass
mind but rather multiple particularities (and that authorship,whether
collaborative or distributed or Sven’s preferred canonical, engages
particularity). Second, I think that we must dare to trust and, more
importantly, that electronic modalities give us arenas which make trust
more possible (taking the form of play, of conversation, of titillation, of
make believe, of tentativeness, of search, of wandering, of “pleasure in
the confusion of boundaries and responsibility for their construction” as
Haraway has it).

So when Sven goes on to deny the possibility that “the Net will promote a
desirable egalitarianism” because “we will find the varieties of otherness
heightened rather than reduced,” I can only feel a sympathetic sadness for
him. One would hope that (whether he ever looks into the machine or no) he
could see that what makes us equal *are* our differences, “the friction of
otherness” or, what Cixous calls, “the betweenus we must take care to
keep,” with emphasis upon the care.

Return to the Dialog