So far so bad

After having just completed another article relating to the development of scientific communication networks, I feel like I have expanded my understanding of the inherent communicative powers of information/knowledge. Unfortunately, I am still faced with the unwavering issue of how to apply the model of “the medium is the message” (and Secord’s advancement that “the message is the medium”) to my particular project topic of indentured servitude in and around the Indian Ocean (both colonized Africans and Southern Asians)- still feel like this could be narrowed to one region -. Specifically, to what extent the transfer of knowledge from a multitude of areas/localities to other destinations was employed by the actors within networks is of particular concern. In essence, I am still grappling with the issue of agency and, more specifically, how networks disseminated knowledge across regions.

Although I was initially of the opinion that the best course of action was to look at networks as modes of communication that could be utilized by non-human and human actors, Secord’s discussion of actor-network theory has given me ample reason to re-evaluate. Chiefly, I want to approach from a different angle by tracing knowledge/information’s inherent ability to create transnational networks. Simply, it appears that the way to understand whether or not indentured migration was strategic (both for the workers and for the employers) is to look at how knowledge occurred and arose out of established connections (i.e. ‘weak’ ties). This would hopefully produce a more encompassing view of migration that would place the information itself at the centre of determining migrant networks’ ‘strategy’, or conversely, ‘un-strategy’. It would appear that, by this, I am turning towards a view of exclusion with respect to actors’ own agency. Of course, I do not want to imply that workers and their employers were being controlled and directed in transnational networks by the very information it was disseminating.

Rather, I want to establish a common theme throughout my essay that positions the transfer of knowledge in terms of a teetering balance. The more localized and specific a network is analysed, the harder it will be to see the agency employed the large network, as well as the larger networks ‘strategic’, or ‘un-strategic’, communication (communication is inexorably linked with migration because indentured migrants had, at least, a choice whether or not to join). Conversely, the larger the scope of analysis becomes (macro-ized?!), the more difficult it will be to observe the levels of agency that employers and migrants had at their disposal. It will, thus, be imperative to constantly re-inforce Secord’s notion of the inherent communication power of things-in-motion and how they affected agency within the indentured migrant networks. Moreover, I believe it will be imperative to my argument to be able to observe whether or not influences on communication/migration networks impacted the ability of actors within these networks to employ strategy – essentially, ability to choose/or agency of an actor.

Moving on a bit, I have elected to revise my initial question (assuming Dr. Struck you are ok with it – and assuming you will be ok with future refinements) to this:

To what extent was indentured migration of the Indian Ocean ‘strategic’ for actors within (potentially British, though I am unsure ) colonial transnational networks?