Even though technological equipment terminates remoteness, it does not actually gather things closer or move one nearer. The initial distance between things is implanted in the media themselves. For example, television brings remote things within view, but at the same time it conceptually holds them away and keeps them from being closer. Whether equipment or art, a thing is something that does what it is meant to do, presencing by gathering what it gathers to do its work. However, with modern technology, instead of bringing far things near to be authentically experienced, everything becomes imbued with “uniform distancelessness” (Heidegger, 2001, p. 164). Conversely, there is no longer a distinction possible between near and far; the words become meaningless, obliviating the requirement of distance needed for conceptual isolation and abstraction.
The context of this study is the confluence of three distinguishable phenomena: the network, the media, and the everyday performances of culture that bring these into play with each other and with human actors. Globalization is often described as constituted to a significant extent by networks, places, and mobility. Castells (2000) goes as far as to state that network is what makes globalization possible, while Hardt and Negri (2000) theorize politics of the twenty-first century to be a globally net- worked circumstance even in the minutia of interpersonal relationships. Within this global network array, “place” is used to name localized sites of activity and agency. “Network” is thus a spatialization of relations between places, giving rise to the conditions that make globalization possible. The third component, mobility, portrays movement between places of people and/or information and other goods within networks. Altogether, a pic- ture emerges in keeping with Doreen Massey’s description of “power geometry” (1993), in which places, networks, and movement produce geometric spatializations reflected in geographic arrangements of power.