Otros elementos
4.1. Relevancia de la sociedad civil y la prensa
Jeffrey Juris (2012), a former PhD student of Castells, conducted participant observation at Occupy Boston. He says that whereas the global justice movement primarily used mailing lists and was based on a logic of networking, the Occupy movement is based on a logic of aggregation, based on which social media result
in “the viral flow of information and subsequent aggregations of large numbers of individuals in concrete physical spaces” (Juris 2012, 266). Individuals would “blast out vast amounts of information”, make use of “ego-centered networks” so that “the use of Twitter and Facebook [. . .] tends to generate ‘crowds of individu- als’” (Juris 2012, 267). Like Castells, Juris assumes that social media “generate” protests. He claims that “social media such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter became the primary means of communication within #Occupy” (266), without empirically validating this claim.
In his book Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism, Paolo Gerbaudo (2012) challenges, on theoretical and empirical grounds, the assumption of Castells and others that the Internet brings about leaderless movements. He interviewed 80 activists in the USA, Egypt, Spain, the United Kingdom, Tunisia and Greece about their use of social media in protests and found that although contemporary social movements claim that they are lead- erless networks, there are soft leaders who make use of social media for cho- reographing protests and “constructing a choreography of assembly” (Gerbaudo 2012, 139): “a handful of people control most of the communication flow” (Gerbaudo 2012, 135). The choreography of assembly means “the use of social media in directing people towards specific protest events, in providing partici- pants with suggestions and instructions about how to act, and in the construc- tion of an emotional narration to sustain their coming together in public space” (Gerbaudo 2012, 12). The movements’ spontaneity would be organized “pre- cisely because it is a highly mediated one” (Gerbaudo 2012, 164). The ethical problem would not be this movement choreography, but the denial that there are leaders because this would result in unaccountability.
Miriyam Aouragh (2012, 529) argues that the “overt fascination with social media gave the impression that the revolutions were mainly middle class and secular. Western experiences were taken as the model for Arab revolutions evaluated through the lens of modernity going hand in hand with the idea that social media plays an important role in developing a sense of modernity or, as this fascinating analysis claims”.
Overcoming short-circuited analyses of the role of social media in revolutions would require a dialectical and historical Marxist analysis:
explaining the value of the internet can never make sense without including a political and historic contextualisation. Rather than a sudden ‘awakening’, the region was already in turmoil, protests had been accumulating for almost a decade, starting with the outbreak of the Second Intifada and Ariel Sharon’s massacre of Palestinians; the invasion of Iraq; anger over leaders seen as the local lackeys of the US and Israel. A widespread and deep anger over the regional politics overlapped with domestic issues and grew deeper as the economic impact of the neoliberal (IMF/WB) privatisation com- bined with the price increases caused by the global financial crisis. (Aouragh 2012, 529)
Miriyam Aouragh shares Paolo Gerbaudo’s analysis, but connects it, in contrast to him, to a Marxist theory framework:
I argued, echoing Rosa Luxemburg, that revolutionary change does not rely on spontaneous unorganized acts: it needs organizers, leaders, determination, and accountability. Discipline and structured organizing enables activists to generalize from complex and uneven realities and they are imperative for the survival of political movements. The activ- ist networks do not confirm the view of leaderless swarms as often remarked when “new” Internet structures for political activism are concerned. It is mostly because it looked like it was a new, youth, non- ideological, online, horizontal movement that it gained attention and perhaps for many disillusioned with mainstream politics to give it the benefit of the doubt. (Aouragh 2012, 534)
4.5. Conclusion
Manuel Castells conceives of “social media” as a form of mass self-communication and as a social realm where communication power and counter-power are exerted. There are doubts about Castells’ use of social theory, his notion of power, the use of computer science terms for analyzing society, the assessment and categorical description of the power distribution between global multimedia corporations and the creative audience, the feasibility of the notion of web 2.0, and the centrality of informationalism and communication power.
The global economic crisis resulted in a return of the importance of economic questions, which are also questions about class, in social theory, and has shown the huge power that the global financial and economic networks wield over our lives. The central political task might now be to develop counter-power against the commodification of everything. The task for social theory in the contem- porary situation is to develop analyses of power and potential counter-power. Manuel Castells reminds us that the role of communication certainly should not be neglected in such endeavours. However, I have serious doubts that Castells’ approach can advance the critical analysis of contemporary society or provide help for creating a better society.
We can summarize the main conclusions of this chapter:
• Castells mainly presents a history of the Internet and its context, and his work lacks a theory of society and a theory of modern society. His approach is neither a social theory, nor adequately theoretically grounded, but rather an arbitrary and unsystematic form of conceptualizing and col- lection of observations. Castells’ concept of social media lacks an engage- ment with social theories that conceptualize power, autonomy, society, sociality and capitalism.
• Castells conveives of power and communication power as coercive, asymmetric, and violent features of all societies. He thereby naturalizes
domination and overlooks the possibility of dominationless communica- tion and a dominationless society.
• Manuel Castells uses computing language (terms like program, switches, protocols, kernel) for describing society. He conflates the logic of soci- ety with the logic of computing and cannot account for the special role of humans in society.
• In his discussion of social media in the Arab Spring, the Occupy movement and other 2011 uprisings, Castells shares the techno-euphoria and techno- determinism of thinkers like Clay Shirky (2008, 2011a, 2011b) and Andrew Sullivan (2009) by advancing the assumption that contemporary social movements emerged from and are largely based on the Internet and live and act through digital media.
A critical theory of social media and society is needed. Neither Jenkins nor Castells have provided such an approach. This book tries to contribute to the creation of some foundations of a critical theory of social media.
RECOMMENDED READINGS
AND EXERCISES
Gaining an understanding of the concept of communication power can be achieved by engaging with the works of various thinkers, such as Manuel Castells, those who offer criticisms of Castells and the idea of the network society, such as Bob Jessop, Nicholas Garnham and Eran Fisher, thinkers who have theorized power and violence (e.g. Max Weber, Anthony Giddens, John P. Thompson, Johan Galtung, James Curran) and those who have studied social media in revolutions (e.g. Miriyam Aourgah, Paolo Gerbaudo).
Castells, Manuel. 2010b. The rise of the network society. The information age: economy, society and culture, Volume I (2nd edition with a new preface). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Preface to the 2010 edition. Prologue: The Net and the self. Conclusion: The network society.
Jessop, Bob. 2003/2004. Informational capitalism and empire: The postmarxist celebra- tion of US hegemony in a new world order. Studies in Political Economy 71/72: 39–58. Garnham, Nicholas. 2000. “Information society” as theory or ideology. Information,
Communication & Society 3 (2): 139–152.
Fisher, Eran. 2010. Contemporary technology discourse and the legitimation of capital- ism. European Journal of Social Theory 13 (2): 229–252.
Fuchs, Christian. 2012. Capitalism or information society? The fundamental question of the present structure of society. European Journal of Social Theory, first published on November 20, 2012 as doi: 10.1177/1368431012461432.
Fuchs, Christian. 2009. Some reflections on Manuel Castells’ book “Communication power”.
tripleC: Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 7 (1): 94–108.
Castells’ The Network Society is the book that made his work appealing to a wide audience. It introduces the idea that we live in a network society. Critical theorists Bob Jessop and Nicholas Garnham are critical of this notion, which is expressed in their reviews of Castells’ book. Eran Fisher contextualizes the network discourse and argues that it is a new ideology. Christian Fuchs stresses that it is important to talk about capitalism when discussing information technologies and that one needs a dialectical analysis for understanding their impact on society. He questions Castells’ notion that the network society is a new society. Read the texts and in groups discuss the following questions:
• What is an ideology? Try to give a definition. You can search for and consult literature for this task.
• In respects are the information society and the network society ideologies? Which ideologies do the authors identify in the work of Castells? Construct an ordered and systematic typology of ideologies of the information and network society.
• Find examples of how the ideologies identified in the previous task can be found in public discourses about social media. Find examples by consulting media, debates, press releases, news clips, websites, etc.
• Do we live in an information society or not? Give reasons for your answer.
• How should contemporary society be characterized? What is your individual opinion and what is your group’s opinion? What prefix should be used for characterizing contemporary society and why? Note: A prefixing term (as in “information society”, “knowledge society”, “modern society”, “industrial society”, “agricultural society”, “reflexive society”, “postmodern society”, “digital society”, “global society”, “postindustrial society”, “capitalist society”, “labour society”, “hyperreal society”, “education society”, “dynamic society”, “functionally differentiated society”, “flexible society”, “adventure society”, “divided society”, “polycentric society”, “risk society”, “transcultural society”, “multicultural society”, “surveillance society”, “transparent society”, “responsible society”, “virtual society”, “ICT society”, “Internet society”, “cyber society”, “world society”, etc.) of society indicates that the prefix is the main characteristic of the society that is being described.
Castells, Manuel. 2009. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1: Power in the network society. Conclusion: Toward a communication theory of power.
In Communication Power, Castells provides an analysis of power in the context of social media.
• Search for reviews and criticisms of Castells’ book with the help of Social Sciences Citation Index, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Google Scholar, etc. Work in groups and construct a systematic and ordered list of points of criticism. Discuss these criticisms first in groups and then compare the results with the class.
Weber, Max. 1981. Selections from Economy and Society, volumes 1 and 2; and General economic history. In Classes, power, and conflict: Classical and contemporary debates, ed. Anthony Giddens and David Held, 60–86. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of struc-
turation. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 1: Elements of the theory of structuration.
Chapter 5: Change, evolution and power.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter II.
Max Weber and Anthony Giddens are two of the most important social theorists of the twentieth century. They have both provided theories of society that include important concepts of power.
• Compare Weber’s and Giddens’ concepts of power. What are commonalities and differences?
• Compare both Weber’s and Giddens’ concepts of power to Castells’ concept of communication power.
• Find examples of communication power on social media based on a Weberian understanding of power.
• Find examples of communication power on social media based on a Giddensian understanding of power.
Movie: Manuel Castells: Lecture about “Communication power in the network society”, http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk/?view=Webcast&ID=20081023_266&quality=high
Watch the video lecture. Ask yourself what you like about it and what points of criticism you have. Discuss the lecture in groups. Present the discussion results.
Work in groups: Try to find an example of communication power and counter-power on social media and look for a short video about this example that can be presented in the classroom. Prepare a presentation that focuses on the following questions:
• What is communication power? What is communication counter-power? How can the two terms be defined? Which definition should be employed – the one by Castells or another one, and why?
• Prepare an example of communication power and communication counter- power on social media. Use a short YouTube video that can be presented to your colleagues that is connected to the topic of communication power.
• Discuss aspects of communication power and communication counter-power in relation to your example video.
• Each group presents its example video and explains what aspects of
communication power and communication counter-power can be found in the example and how these terms can best be understood.
Castells, Manuel. 2012. Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the
Internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapters: Opening: Networking minds, creating
meaning, contesting power;The Egyptian revolution; Occupy Wall Street: Harvesting the salt of the earth; Changing the world in the network society.
Fuchs, Christian. 2012. Some reflections on Manuel Castells’ book “Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age”. tripleC: Communication,
Capitalism & Critique: Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 10 (2): 775–797.
Networks of Outrage and Hope is Castells’ analysis of social media’s role in the
2011 revolutions and uprisings. I have published the first English review of this book.
• Read the chapters listed above in Castells’ book. Note especially how he uses the terms “power” and “communication power”. Work in groups and compare
these passages to the definitions of communication power in his previous book,
Communication Power (2009). How exactly does Castells apply this concept?
What kind of definition of power does he advance in the books? Are the definitions the same or do they vary?
• Read my criticism of Castells. Search for additional reviews and criticisms with the help of Social Sciences Citation Index, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Google Scholar, etc. Work in groups and construct a systematic and ordered list of points of criticism. Discuss these criticisms first in groups and then compare the results with the class.
Thompson, John B. 1995. The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 1: Communication and social context.
Galtung, Johan. 1990. Cultural violence. Journal of Peace Research 27 (3): 291–305. John B. Thompson’s The Media and Modernity is an influential book in media sociol- ogy. Chapter 1 includes a discussion of power. Johan Galtung is the founder of Peace and Conflict Studies and has written extensively on questions of violence. The works of these two thinkers are a helpful starting point for discussing the role of power and violence in the media. Read these two texts and discuss:
• How should the terms power and violence best be defined (try to give your own views and definitions)?
• Which forms of power are there (try to give your own views and definitions)?
• Which forms of violence exist (try to give your own views and definitions)?
• How can the relationship of power and violence best be conceptualized (try to give your own views and definitions)?
• Discuss how different forms of power and violence play a role in social media. Try to find examples and explain which forms of power and violence play a role and what role they have.
Curran, James. 2002. Media and power. London: Routledge. Chapter 5: Renewing the radical tradition.
Curran’s book Media and Power discusses the multidimensional character of power in capitalism and how its economic, political and ideological dimensions relate to the media.
• Discuss James Curran’s dimensions of media power and media counter-power and compare them to Table 4.3 in this chapter. Try to find examples for all forms of media power and media counter-power in the context of social media. Aouragh, Miriyam. 2012. Social media, mediation and the Arab revolutions. tripleC:
Communication, Capitalism & Critique: Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society 10 (2): 518–536.
Gerbaudo, Paolo. 2012. Tweets and the streets: Social media and contemporary
Juris, Jeffrey S. 2012. Reflections on #occupy everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist 39 (2): 259–279.
Murthy, Dhiraj. 2013. Twitter: Social communication in the Twitter age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 6: Twitter and activism.
The four texts by Miriyam Aouragh, Paolo Gerbaudo, Jeffrey Juris and Dhiraj Murthy provide analyses of the role of social media in the 2011 revolutions and protests.
• Read the four texts. Compare all four positions to Castells’ conceptualization of the role of social media in the Arab Spring and the 2011 protests.
• Compare the four authors’ analyses to each other. What commonalities and differences are there? What role does critical thinking and theorizing play?