[ICTs-and-Society] Fwd: Discussion post from m.andrejevic at uq.edu.au

[Niels Ole Finnemann]

Thanks again for many interesting comments on this list. I would like to add
a comment too. Most people here seem to agree that there is no single theory
which can "fully" explain the internet". But so far there have been few
attempts to map the whole array of possible theoretical approaches. This
might be an important endeavour and possible outcome of the conference too.
I would like to suggest three different approaches which in my view have
something to add: First, mediatization theory. An overview is given in my
article Mediatization Theory and Digital Media, Communications, European
journal of communication Research 2011 (1). Second, Domestication Theory,
especially as it is reformulated by Bakardjieva and Maren Herman and others.
Third, the idea of coevolution of old and new media, as originally stated by
Wolfgang Riepl (for the roman empire...) recently discussed by Winfried
Schultz and, if I may, in some of my own  papers too. 
These three perspectives have one thing in common, which I think is lacking
in the debate here, namely that digital media develops in relations to other
media. This also means that the role of the internet differs due to the
character of the existing media systems in different countries. For instance
there are some striking parallellities between Hallin and Mancinis analysis
of the printed news media systems in US, Northern and Southern Europe, and
Castells analysis of the Asian, European and American models of the info
society. A recent statistical analysis of Facebook-users reveals that the
number of Facebook users globally does not exceed 12% (as of 2011) of the
world population, but reaches 50% of the American and northern European
population, (read: so far it is primarily a medium or the modern educated
middle classes). The statistics also reveals that the number of Facebook
users in US is stagnating while it is still growing in most other areas.
Whether this is a history of more or less "advanced" societies following the
same trajectory or a history of different trajectories in the usage of the
internet is still to be discussed. We also have some - but not too well
documented - indications that the use of Facebook is gradually changing
towards a stronger integration with mainstream media in Denmark. I don't
know whether this is the case elsewhere. 
Whether the relation between old and new media is one of replacement,
supplementation, enhancement, evolution or co-evolution is still debatable,
but not ignorable. Even if the theories may sound a bit deterministic they
can be interpreted as non-deterministic, as the result of human choices. The
real difficulty in the case of the internet is probably that it is open for
an unlimited array of human motives. 
Best wishes for the conference. I am sorry that I am not able to attend. 
Niels Ole Finnemann
Professor
Center for Internet Studies,
Department of Aestethics and Communication
Aarhus University

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Christian Fuchs [mailto:christian.fuchs at uti.at] 
Sendt: 12. april 2012 09:43
Til: discussion at lists.icts-and-society.net
Emne: [ICTs-and-Society] Fwd: Discussion post from m.andrejevic at uq.edu.au

 From m.andrejevic at uq.edu.au

I agree with Andrew -- an economic approach will not fully explain the
Internet; I see what's taking place here not as an attempt to saturate the
field of explanation with economics, but rather to try to figure out, from a
critical perspective, just what is taking place economically in the realm of
social media. Not trying to explain everything with economics, in other
words, but rather highlighting that there is an economic bit that still
needs explaining and understanding, precisely because there are important
ways in which it differs from what came before. To pick up on Andrew's
invocation of Marx, one of the bases for collection action is some
understanding of the terms of exploitation that structure social relations.
>From this perspective to analyze and critique exploitation is not to
constrain "agency" but rather to start to trace the outlines for the impetus
and ends for collective action. I use scare quotes, because
"structure-agency" talk tends to reproduce a false opposition (familiar in
the so-called debate between political economy and cultural studies) -- as
if pointing out the way in which power relations structure available options
poses a challenge to the idea that political action is possible (rather than
an incitement to it). To my mind wrestling with these questions and trying
to update or reconsider our formulations is doing precisely what Andrew
suggests: not discounting future forms/bases of collective action, but
figuring out what form they might take, and on what basis.  I'm very much
looking forward to hearing more about these.

As for Andrew's claim that there is a "notable absence of reflection on the
agency of users in the political economy of the Internet" -- I'd need a bit
more context/explanation to know whether I agree. Clearly, the "agency" of
users has been a central theme of the theoretical reception of the Internet
more broadly -- and, from what I've seen, this has carried over into
political economic analyses which try to make sense of the ways in which
interactivity, choice, pleasure, sociability, etc, co-exist with forms of
exploitation, the reproduction and exacerbation of existing power relations,
and so on. Much of the critical political economic work followed upon the
celebratory claims made for the empowering/democratizing character of the
Internet -- not to write them off so much as to figure out how they might
live up to their promise (which meant pointing out the ways in which they
fell short, and why). But I feel I'm missing the main point here. I'm
looking forward to hearing more about the forms of user "agency" that have
not
(yet) been reflected on.