[ICTs-and-Society] Plenary 7: “The Internet and Critical Theory Today” (Mark Andrejevic, Andrew Feenberg)

[Seda Guerses]

hi everyone,

first of all thanks for the great discussions of the last months. it has been very invigorating. 
i have more questions then comments. i have the feeling that what has been underrepresented so far in the discussions is the use and design of technology as a form of resistance and organization. i am wondering if technical means of resistance are also going to be part of the discussions? anywhere from diy cultures that produce alternative networks, to those forms of resistance like hacking existing systems, leaching of existing networks for non-productive goals, creating resistant technologies (be it disabling the collection of data through encryption and anonymous communications, spam, or data perturbation), what role do they play, if any, in a world where technology is not only available to a powerful few (but maybe a powerful many?). and, assuming that software and networks are used to manage and control most infrastructures, i am also wondering, what a "great refusal" can look like, that is not shy of (ab)using technology (with a broader definition of technology than the internet)? any opinions?
i write these questions also with the background that one conference submission failed to go through because of the network infrastructure used to organize the conference. this points to how the technologies we use and are dependent on are messy and vulnerable, a matter that often gets disregarded in most discourses of surveillance and control. how can we bring this messiness into our discussions?
i will not be at the conference but wish all of you lots of fun. 
seda 




On Apr 8, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Christian Fuchs wrote:

> Friday, May 4th, 2012
> * Mark Andrejevic (University of Queensland, Australia): Social Media: Surveillance and Exploitation 2.0
> * Andrew Feenberg (Simon Fraser University, Canada): Great Refusal and Long March: How to Use Critical Theory to Think About the Internet.
> Chair: Christian Fuchs
> 
> Mark's and Andrew's talks will bring up questions like the following ones: How do corporations use social networking sites? What is exploitation 2.0 and how does the exploitation of labour work on social media? How is online life commercialized, branded, and monetized? What is the role of surveillance in online exploitation? How can critical theory adequately reflect and criticize these developments?
> How relevant is Herbert Marcuse's thinking and critical theory today? What is an adequate strategy for transforming the Internet? Does it require a "Great Refusal" (Marcuse) or a "Long March through the Institutions" (Dutschke, Marcuse)? Does Critical Theory require a blanket condemnation of the Internet? Does Critical Theory need a long march strategy that assesses the Internet's reality against its potentials? What is the essence of the Internet? What is the existence of the Internet? Is there a difference between essence and existence of the Internet? What is a true Internet? What a false Internet?
> 
> Pre-conference discussions on these and related questions are welcome over the mailing list.
> 
> ***
> 
> MARK ANDREJEVIC
> University of Queensland, Australia
> 
> Social Media: Surveillance and Exploitation 2.0
> 
> ABSTRACT: This presentation explores the ways in which social networking technologies are being taken up by the commercial sector as ways for integrating social and work life. Thanks to the popularity and ubiquity of social network technologies in some sectors of the population, companies are finding ways to exploit the social connections of their employees, customers, and clients, leading to start-up companies that seek to monetize social network data by linking it with consumer relations databases and other technologies for target marketing. When important aspects of people’s social lives migrate onto commercial platforms these become subject to marketing imperatives, self-branding becomes a new (or updated) form of employee asset. The goal of the presentation is to develop a theoretical approach to the commercialization and monetization of online social life. To what extent might the critique of exploitation be updated and brought to bear upon the productivity of social networks? What aspects of this critique help illuminate the wholesale commodification of social relationships, and what are the implications of relying upon a privately owned commercial infrastructure for their development? The critique of exploitation directs us back to these questions. It urges us to consider the ways in which the commercialization of the platform turns our own activity back upon ourselves in the service of priorities that are not our own, and it reminds us of the double duty done by the privately controlled interactive infrastructure. This infrastructure might serve as a platform for new forms of creativity, deliberation, communication, interaction, and consumption. At the same time, though, it works to assemble the most comprehensive system for mass monitoring in human history. The accusation associated with the critique of exploitation reminds us of the ways in which new forms of marketing driven surveillance help turn our own productive activity back upon ourselves in the service of ends that are not our own.
> 
> SPEAKER INFO: Mark Andrejevic is a media scholar at The University of Queensland, Australia. He writes about surveillance, new media, and popular culture. In broad terms, he is interested in the ways in which forms of surveillance and monitoring enabled by the development of new media technologies impact the realms of economics, politics, and culture.
> 
> ***
> 
> ANDREW FEENBERG
> Simon Fraser University, Canada
> Great Refusal and Long March: How to Use Critical Theory to Think About the Internet
> 
> ABSTRACT: Herbert Marcuse suggested two different strategies at different points in his career. The Great Refusal implied a strategy of non-cooptable demands. This notion stemmed from a dystopian sense of the total systematization of society and was in harmony with the uncompromising opposition of the early New Left. But in the later period of what Marcuse called the “preventive counter-revolution”, he adopted Rudi Dutschke’s slogan of “the long march through the institutions”. The choice at this time was between withdrawal, terrorism and participating critically. Marcuse advocated the latter.
> I want to think about our critical stance toward the Internet in terms of these two strategies. Does Critical Theory require a blanket condemnation of the Internet? This seems to be the conclusion drawn by many observers. Hypothetically, this could lead one to a Great Refusal of the Internet and all its works, withdrawal to an Internet-free zone of some sort. I will argue that we need a long march strategy based on a much more nuanced critique. We need to measure the Internet against its real potentials and defend it against real dangers rather than condemning it unqualifiedly.
> 
> SPEAKER INFO: Andrew Feenberg holds the Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Technology in the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, where he directs the Applied Communication and Technology Lab. His main areas of research are Critical Theory and philosophy of technology.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
> http://lists.icts-and-society.net/listinfo.cgi/discussion-icts-and-society.net