1

A Foucaultian perspective on web 2.0

2

Why adopting a critical approach? Need of a cultural resistance

The rise of the optimistic (and ideological) approaches to web 2.0

Economic theory (new economy before the 2000; digital capitalism after the 2000; theory of the end of scarcity; end of phisical work; rise of digital workers …): Kelly 1995, 1999, Anderson 2009, Tapscott and Williams 2006, Shirky 2010

Psichological (or philosophic) theory: new cognitive skills (Turkle 1995; 1999); new (non alphabetic) mankind: Lévy 1994, Serres 2009

3

Why adopting a critical approach? Need of a cultural resistance (2)

Political theory (rise of democracy in web 2.0, netizens… wikicracy…)

Sociological theory (new communities; tribal society…): Rheingold 1991, 1993, 2002

Semiotic theory (active, participating audiences…)

4

Critical (or self-critical) approaches

Economic theory

Psichological (or philosophic) theory

Capitalistic characteristics of digital capitalism; concentrations, enclosures: Lovink 2007, Formenti 2011

Addictions; narcissism; crisis of traditional ways of in depth thinking: Lanier 2010, Turkle 2009, 2011, Carr 2010

5

Political theory

Sociological theory (new communities; tribal society…)

Semiotic theory

Rise of centripetal control: Barabasi 2002; crisis of democracies: Gladwell 2010

Individualism or mass individualism: Castells (2009)

Parallel flows of user communication activities (see later)

Critical (or self-critical) approaches (2)

6

Roots of critical approaches

Rediscovering classics: Marx, Lacan, Althusser, Gramsci, Foucault

Usefullness of Foucault: genealogy as a tool for understanding the constitution of individuals in the modern society

Weakness of Foucault: impossibility to translate his thinking in revolutionary (or at least political) action (Formenti)

7

Dealing with MF…

8

3 contributes to a critical theory of web 2.0

Topic of disciplinary power

Topic of self-telling

Topic of truth-telling and democratic paradox

9

Two reasons for adopting Michel Foucault’s perspective

Foucault as a reference for the studies on digital interactive media and power, from Lyon to Andreevic

Foucault’s point of view on power enables us to look the distribution of social power in a complex and problematic way: not only its vertical form, but also a kind of horizontal relation between individuals.

10

Foucault’s theory of the social control (in brief)

In some of his works (1973-1975), Foucault distinguishes between two different forms of power: • Sovereignity: pre-modern power, based on the

- king’s (intermittant) visibility,- citizen’s invisibility (with the exception of the

intervention of the power, like public executions)• Discipline. Modern power, based on

- continuous surveillance- citizens visibility.

11

Standing points

For Foucault the modern power needs three basic elements:

Subjects: (institutions like school, army, asylums; but also citizens, like in Panopticon)

Technology: writing, which enables the system on the one hand to settle the conditions of the social

life, on the other hand to memorize the citizens’ behaviours

Objects: the citizen’s “soul” (standardization of behaviour, thinking, knowledge…)

12

Key concept

The concept of “dispositif” (french word, in english translated as “apparatus”): it’s a synthesis of technological and social systems, able to work in automatic (and unnoticed) way as regulator and controller.

The reason-why of the consensus is the idea of safety in a (potentially) unsafe society.

13

A typical example of the power of discipline: the Panopticon, the prison planned by Jeremy Bentham, The convicts live in cells with only one transparent wall. They can be watched by prison guards, or any citizen who decides to observe them.

14

A foucaultian persective on web 2.0?

Every single act of the receiver/user can be seen/read by the ”apparatus” (transparency)

the communication flow is practically continuous (more the user is always on, more her/his life is traceable by the system, or by other users)

the trust is replaced by an implicit acceptance, typical of the relationship with the apparatus

15

Standing pointsIn a Foucauldian perspective, the asset of digital power

needs three basic elements: Subjects: great economical companies using big set of

users data (i.e. Google) Tools: set of hardware and software devices for treatment

of personal data, which enables the apparatus on the one hand to create profiles of users on the other hand to conditioning their digital and

personal behaviours: see bank, search engines, commercial or cognitive companies…

Objects: the citizen’s digital “soul” (produced contents, responses to companies contents or services, communication activities…)

16

Key concept

The reasons-why of the consensus are:

(communicative) richness in a proletarizing society

free consumption as a form of freedom

sociability in an unfriendly society

17

A synthesis about the communication flow

Traditional media:

the flow of communication goes from the apparatus to recipients, that can interpret/ domesticate the message/device

trust (credibility or reliability) is part of the relation of the recipient with the message and the publisher/editor/author

.

Digital interactive media:

users use the media as a resource for horizontal communication, but they are in fact generating a flow of information towards the apparatus

users assign to the apparatus the value of tools. In these instruments, trust is of automatic type and poorly verified

18

DIGITAL MEDIA: WHAT THE USERS REALLY DO

•Send information on theirselves to

the apparatus

• Communicate to/with others

• Receive/read texts

• Use tools

Users Receivers

CommoditiesAuthors

19

Some results

A foucaultian perspective enables us to understand the characteristic power structure of the digital communication in the web 2.0

The peculiar form of the digital apparatus is able to explain the ambiguous role of the activity of the user in digital media

In a foucaultian perspective the form of power doesn’t explain only the traditional vertical form of the power, but also the more radical power implicated in many forms of horizontal communications (see the concept of “interveillance”: Andreevic, Jansson)

20

http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/facebook-is-the-new-panopticon/

21

An example: the Google case

Critical analysis of Google:

- Rank Egemony, Power law (Shirky 2003)- Dialectic between centrifugal and centripetal

forces (Introna and Nissenbaum 2000, Miconi 2011)

- Googlearchy (Hindman and alii 2009)- Customization (or googlelization) of results- Stock and (ab)use of users personal data

22

The foucaultian concern?

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

(Lewis Carroll, Alice through the looking glass)

23

The foucaultian concern?

“When I use your personal data, Google said, in a rather a scornful tone, “I use them in the way I decide — neither more nor less.”    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can use informations ‘bout my self in so many different ways.”    “The question is,” said Google, “which is to be master that’s all.”

(Carroll-Foucault-Colombo, Alice through the looking Google)

24

2. Topic of the talking about the self

- In many works (since 1976: see for instance The will to knowledge, first chapter of the History of Sexuality), Foucault speak about the different forms of “talking about themselves”.

- The basic idea is that the history of Western culture il plenty of influenced forms of “self-telling”

• Relationship between magister and discipulus in ancient Greece, and then in ancient Rome (see for instance Socrates and Seneca)

• Catholic confession• Anamnesys in doctor-patient relationship (specially in

psychiatry)

25

Main issues of the talking about the self

space(physic)

time(ritual)

preminent role(listening)

knowledge

set of instructions to give

subalternal role(speaking)

acceptance

set of works to do

RELATIONAL FRAME

26

Aims of the T.A.T.S.

The real difference between the different historical forms of the self-telling are is the aim of the frame itself: In some cases (see confession, doctor-patient

relationship, psychiatric practice) the main goals are: to aid the patient (to define the symptoms, to define the person

as a patient, to re-introduce him in the ”healthy society” to confirm the preorganized knowledge/power of the

corporation (church, medical corporation…) In other cases (see the greek and roman cases) the aim

is to help the subject in finding the way for taking care of himself.

27

t.a.t.s. on web 2.0

Are blogging and the social media new kind of western self-telling?

Which are the frames of the T.A.T.S. in blogosphere and social media?

28

Main issues of the T.A.T.S. on the web 2.0

space(virtual

)

time(always)

incubator role(host)

knowledge(set of tools, knowledge

about writer)

set of tools to provide

expressive role(writing)

use (acceptance of conditions)

set of tools to use

RELATIONAL FRAME

29

Some results

The self-telling is not (necessarly) a form of free expression. It is rather a form of half-controlled self-telling where part of the frame is predefined by the apparatus (blogging platforms, Sns platforms and so on)

The reasons for the growing T.A.T.S. forms are probably linked to the strong need of sociability (Simmel), but the way the Sns and blogs answer to that must probably be analyzed more in depht.

30

3. Topic of “telling the truth” and democratic paradox

Foucault dedicated part of his work to the problem of parresìa (the practice of telling the truth) in Greek democracy.This topic was also the last he treated, during his last two courses at Collège de France.

His main focus is on the dialectic between the qualitative practice of parresia and the quantitative dimension (elections) in greek democracy.

31

The parrestiastes paradox

In the ancient greek tradition the parresiastes is a man telling the truth. This truth is dangerous for the man himself (see Socrates and condamned to death), but this one can’t avoid to tell it to the others citizen or to the dictator.

The democracy garanties to everyone to express his opinion in the assembly. In that case, obviously, everyone can pretend to be a parresiastes, without being. This is what could be called paradox of democracy.

32

The web as a paradoxical democracy?

The theorists of the web as a potential direct democracy usually do not answer to this paradox. Two are the main arguments used (see for instance Movimento 5 Stelle in Italy): the whole people using internet can check and correct the

defaults of the discussions and decisions: the crowd-sourcing and wiki decision in itself give a certainty of quality of the democratic decision.

people using internet are more motivated and involved in political debate and choices. It does mean that political debate on the web is better in terms of political arguments and quality of results.

33

At the opposite…

The ennemies of the so called direct web democracy use two different arguments:

The possible bad use of the freedom of speech (blaming… racism…)

The low percentage of active users on the web:

34

SOME RESULTS The paradox studied by Foucault remember us

that the dialectic between openness and quality of democracy: Is not linked to a specific technology or environment,

but is constitutive of democracy in itself Its solution could be only found in an ethical

approach (not only right of speech, but also responsibility of speech: see Couldry’s theory of “voice”)

Every solution is not inside or outside the web, but in process of discussion and cooperation.