1. I tend to agree with Pareto (1896) in that along with the formulation of economic policies, the actual political power has been traditionally yielded by elites. In the same vein, Michels (1911) has made the case that even within party organizations, it is always an oligarchy that rules. Is it plausible in our time to speak about a more “democratic elite” in the Manheimian sense, that is one that while is based on selection by merit, can potentially maintain a democratic background?

2. I believe that one of the most interesting points made by Turner in his concluding thoughts is the one that contrasts the “peer-to-peer utopia” with the perpetuation of patterns of injustice and suffering related to the New Communalists’ practices. (“Every time a white hippie comes in and buys a Chicano’s land to escape the fuckin’ city, he sends that Chicano to the city to go through what he’s trying to escape from, can you dig it?” ) How could the members of “a particular social class, bound together by education and race…” adjust their ambition to change the world so as to include new, but still inherently, political forms of consciousness.

3. I wonder if we want to touch on the issue of technological determinism. Do you see Turner as expressing a version (perhaps a softer and a more nuanced one) of technological determinism? Finally, is technological determinism a theory about technology or rather a theory about society?

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?