Online and Offline Social

download Online and Offline Social

of 7

Transcript of Online and Offline Social

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    1/7

    Online and Offline SocialMovements: An InterdisciplinaryCritical Insight

    VASILIKI TRICABased on the premise that societies are in constant transformation, social

    .change is effectuated through social protest. Moreover, new emergingsocial phenomena and social formations appear that require new kinds oftheorizat ion (Langman, 2005). At the same t ime. InformationCommunication Technologies (ICTs) are becoming more widespread andsophisticated in areas where transnational let alone global problems aretack led. That said the relation between ICTs and social and polit icalphenomena becomes progressively more interconnected leading to theemergence of new interdisciplinary research field including the study ofICTs and social movements (SMO s). Con necting ICTs and tech no logy w ithsocial movements also has a historical connotation since the internet hasbeen an outcom e of the polit ics and dynamics of the co ld war on the onehand and the anti-war movement and counter culture oh the other(Rosenweig, 1998).

    Current research therefore needs to take in to account the changing roleof society, demoeraey and teehnology. With respeet to the latter, it isw or th speeifying how teeh nolog y is eoneeived in philosophieal terms. Tw omain theorizations of teehnology ean be distinguished. The first onerepresents the eonstruetivist soeiologieal theorization of seience andtechnology. The basic postulat ion is that technology is inf luenced byinterests and public processes and is social, more or less in the same waylaw, education or medicine is (Feenberg, 1996). Marcuse adheres to thisview and is considered one of its major advocates. Being a romantictechnophobe, Marcuse claims that although technology is neither goodnor bad it sti l l has the propensity to become either good, in the case ofema ncipation, or bad, when it is used for d om ina tion . This is con ditione d bysocial actors (the users of technology) and their motives. For example,tech nolo gy is seen as a t o o l o f do m ination because of its exp loita tion bypolit ical and economic actors and, in more general terms the broadercapitalist social order. The latter is the main cause for assigning mentalpowers to the apparatus of te chn olog y leading t o the emergence of a newtechn ologica l rat ional i ty (Oeay, 20 10 ). Anselmi and Gouliamos (199 8)

    V O L U M E 2 N U M B E R S , 1 -2

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    2/7

    Vasiliki Triga

    have connected the new technological rationality with the mobil ization ofdisplacement. Furthermore, they introduced the concept of "electronicboha partism" as a phenomenon tha t responds to the reg ulatory system ofthe corporate economy. According to this rat ional i ty the individual 'sthoughts become subordinate to the machine process and as a result it isthe machine that directs the individual and not the other way around(Marcuse, 1998; 2001). The second main theorization on technology hasbeen developed by Habermas. Like Marcuse, Habermas also argues thattechnology is neutral but ceases to be when it is applied outside its actualsphere. A t this poin t tech nolo gy can generate various soc ial patho logies ,which then become the main problems of modern societies. Anotherdifference w ith M arcuse lies in the fac t tha t fo r Habermas tech no log y is a'pro jec t' o f the human species as a w ho le, no t o f some particular historicalepoch or of a particular class. At the same time he does not deny theinfluence social demands have on technology (Habermas, 1970). Yet thechanges of technology are not attr ibuted to technological rationalit ies asdefined by Marcuse. So as Feenberg succinctly underlines, for Habermastechnology 'will a lways be a non-so cial, objectivating relation to nature,oriented towards success and control. Marcuse would argue, o n the contrary,that the very essence of technology is at stake at the reform of the mod ernindustrial system.' (1996: 49) .

    The current special issue has soug ht t o ado pt Feenberg's p ropo sal o f acr i t ical theory of technology that combines elements from these twotheorizations and is built on a communication-theoretic basis. Such acrit ical approach affirms Habermas' crit ique that technology has generalcharacteristics which qualify its application. At the same time thoughFeenberg adds another level of critique in order t o address ho w the designof (new) technologies is shaped by the hegemonic interests of the societythey serve. That said technology is perceived as a means in whichinstrumental action-coordination replaces communicative understandingthro ug h Internet-biased designs. So, 'sometimes technology is overextended,sometimes it is politically biased, some times it is both' (Feenberg, 1996:67). To put i t sim ply, this special issue is compiled based on the assum ptionthat technologies are not merely the result of social actions but they canalso have a significant contribution to social forms.,

    If we further limit ou r consideration of tech nolog y t o the study of ICTs andhow these affect democracy and society, then we come across a literaturethat discusses ICTs in tenns o f advantages and disadvantages (Postmes, 20 07 ;Van de Donk et al., 2004). In debating the rote of ICTs, various scholarsadvocate that the use and effect of ICTs is so expansive that it has caused a

    JOURNAL OF CRITICAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS & SOCIETY

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    3/7

    Online and Offline Social Movements: An Interdisciplinary Critical Insight

    fundamental change in power relations (Castells, 2000: 20). This newparadigm shift constitutes the so-called trans form ation al thesis regarding therole of ICTs. Examples of the transforniational potential of ICTs include therise o f a 'netw ork soc iety' (Cas tells, 19 97). This eventually has also led to theemergence of th e 'Interne t-worked Social Movements' (ISMs), which are newkinds of Internet-based social movements employing new forms of activism,such as cyberactivism, online networks and communities tha t fo rm new soc ialand political identities. The transformation occurring due to ICTs can beunderstood in positive terms such as for example an increase in civicengagement through the maintenance and extension of existing socialnetworks, identities and ties (Jennings and Zeitner, 2003; Xenos and Moy,2007 ; Wellman and Hampton, 1999). Supporters of the positive effects ofICTs are po rtrayed as 'cyber-optimists' as con trasted t o 'cyber-pessimists'. Thelatter countenance the transformative pote ntial o f the internet to o but this isrepresented negatively. An illustrative example concerns ICTs causingindividuals' increasing isolation and limited civic participation (Kraut et al.,1998) or the increased state surveillance at the expense of c ivil liberties (e.g.:Van De Donk et al., 1995). On the other side, there is another group ofresearchers who perceive ICTs as merely another means of com municationand information, not sufficient for bringing social and polit ical change(Bentivegna, 200 6). For them, the inte rnet simply represents a complementarychannel in the political game (Hill & Hughes, 1999; Margolis & Resnick,20 00 ). Such views are in contrast t o the transform ation thesis and put intoquestion the effect of ICTs. In particular, ICTs are seen as unable t o provokeany change in relation t o the nature of pow er and principles of democracy ora shift to a new society (Webster, 20 06 ).

    A range of empirical studies have provided evidence for the purportedchanging nature of soc ial movem ents, bo th online and offl in e. Apart fromthe debate between 'cyber optimists' and 'cyber pessimists' that has beencriticized as banal, and recurs whenever a new t o o l is introd uced , there areothe r debates in rela tion t o ICTs. Researchers ofte n atte m pt t o address thequestion of whether ICTs have or not a substantial effect on SMOs andsocial change. Another line of research focus on whether online or offlineSMOs are more effec tive a nd, in some cases how the y in terac t. In order t oem pirically explore these questions researchers co ncep tualize ICTs and theinternet differently. Indeed the way in which scholars conceptualize theinternet gives stro ng indications on which aspect of th e internet their studyfocuses on. Considering the internet as a merely technology rather thanemphasizing its communicative capabil it ies is a sign of technologicaldeterminism (B reindl, 20 10 ). Van De Donk et al. (20 04 ) for example use the

    VOLUME 2 NUMBERS 1-2

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    4/7

    Vasiliki Triga

    term 'new media' when addressing the internet conceiving it as a/communication media and more generally as an alternative source ofinformation. However, onl ine and off l ine worlds are increasinglyinterconnected and a dichotomized opposition between both domains isincreasingly cdticized (Breindl, 20 10 ).

    Beadng in mind that the off l ine and onl ine worlds of SMOs areinterco nne cted , some o f the papers included in this special issue focus ona critical analysis o f various SMOs independently o f the ICT eleme nt. Whenfocusing on SMOs, a number of questions are generally raised: whethersocial protest is effective in bdnging social change; whether the existingcons tellations of pow er has changed; or ho w w ell the existing theodes ofSMOs could account for the dynamics in particular contexts. These issuesare specifically elabo rated by t w o papers. The first one wr itte n by Seppladdresses the que stion of powe r throu gh a cd tica l analysis of th e dom inanttheoretical discourses on globalization, namely l iberal cosmopolitanismand radical post-structuralism as opposed to state centrism. Based on thepremise that crit ical theodes should have a practical polit ical use, sheconcludes that the dominant discourses on globalization, as analysed inthe new anti-war movement in Britain, replicate the debate betweenresource mobilization and new social movement theories. As a result thisreproduces dualities which does not help explain the potential for socialchange. As an alternative the author proposes new anti-war movementdiscourses tha t combine bo th instrumen tal and symbolic no tions o f power.The second paper of Baka and G ad fallo u provides another case study fro mthe Greek con text and particu larly the social unrest provoked by the eventsof December 2008. The authors use the lens of social psychology toconcep tualize conten tious events as strategies adopted by min od ty groupsin a process of social change. In particular the authors employ socialidenti ty theory and the elaborated social identi ty model to study theinterpersonal, intergroup and ideological processes of collectivemobil izat ion. The analysis of the discourse col lected dudng the socialprotest events in December 2008 in Greece brings to the fore theemergence of an innovative, pol i t ic ized col lect ive identi ty of theparticipants tha t is based on solidad ty, empowerment and the for m atio n ofsocial networks.The third contdbution by Tdga employs a social construct ionisttheo retica l framew ork tha t builds upon the ideo logica l dilemmas approachin order to explore the ide olog ical resources inform ing the protest actionof the social movement 'I don't pay' in Greece. The author analyses themovement's discursive constructions as these are presented in the

    JOURNAL OF CRITICAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS & SOCIETY

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    5/7

    Online and Offline Social Movements: An Interdisciplinary Critical Insight

    descriptions of selected Facebook groups. Hence she analyses an offlinemo vem ent using its online action s. Her main; con clusion is th at thediscursive constructions of the protest action of the respective socialmovem ent may prom pt us to question whether on the one hand, everydayunderstandings of parliamentarism and representative democracy are themain mechanisms tha t tr igger p olit ic al and social action on the part o ft h ecitizens and on the oth er, whether th e financ ial erisis ean be also interpre tedas a erisis of politieal institutions.

    Thus far the papers have only taekled the role of teehnology assupplementary t o SMOs in terms o f m ob il ization and/or partieipation. Thefo llo w in g three eontributions adopt a more concrete pos ition vis a vis therole o f ICTs. Chadjimanolis in his paper uses po litic al o pp ortu nity structuretheory a long wit h eco logical mod ernization theory in order to examine theenvironmental movement in Cyprus, a case for which we have a l imitedliteratu re. His main goa l is to investigate the role played by ICTs regardingthe internal organ ization o f the environme ntal social movements and theiraction repertoires. He analyses the major ideological dilemma betweenecology and progress that environmental SMOs attempt to negotiate inorder to accommodate the role of ICTs. More specifically, ICTs are usedprogressively t o pro m ote the m ovemen t's principal objectives such as greendeve lopme nt w hile , on the oth er ha nd, ICTs are seen as hindering eco logyby posing new problems. The autho r points o ut the a mbivalent relationshipbetween ICTs and innovation on the one side and the emergence ofenvironmental movements, their contribution to democratic processes, andcitizens' participation in environmental policy-making on the other.

    Based on an alternative theorization of SMOs that uses Til ly's socialmovement theory and DeLanda's assemblage theory, Craviolini et al.address the spatiality and technicity of social protest. In order to achievethis goal they crit ically evaluate the impact of ICTs op SMOs andparticularly the performativity of social action. They conclude that ICTshave an imp ortant tra ns form ation al pote ntia l that entails a ehange from asoeiety of diseipUne to a soeiety of eontrol. Eehoing a eyber-pessimistieargument they eonelude that SMOs effeetiveness regarding organ ization isdisputed in terms of spaee and time. In order to reetify this lack ofeffectiveness, a reconce ptua lization of SMOs is needed tha t is sensitive t othe complex intertwining of off l ine and online relationships.

    Finally, in the last con trib utio n Mndez takes a largely sceptical stanceon the dem ocratizing po ten tial o f ICT. W hilst accepting tha t ICT is havinga considerable impact on how cit izens, civil society groups, and polit icalauthorit ies interact and produce collective decisions, he argues that this

    V O L U M E 2 N U M B E R S 1 -2

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    6/7

    Vasiliki Triga

    need no t en tail a transform ation in existing po litiea l praetices. Change maybe possible at the margins, and the empowerment of new soeial actors 'through soeiat.media is l ikely to intensify, but a paradigm shift towardspartieipatory models of aetive citizenship is likely to remain elusive.

    ReferencesAnselmi, W illiam and Gouliamos, Kosta. Elusive Margins: Consuming Media,Ethnicity, and Culture. (Guernica, Toronto-Buffalo-Lancaster', 1998).Bentivegna, Sara. 'Rethinking Pplitics in the World of ICTs', European journal

    of Communication 21 (September, 2006): 331-343.Breindl, Yana. 'Critique of the Democratic Potentialities of the Intemet: A Reviewof Current Theory and Practice', tripleC - Cog nition, Communication, Co-operation S. 7C2O7O;; 43-59.Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the N etwork Society, The Information Age:

    Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 2000).Castells. The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society and

    Culture Vol. II. (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997).Feenberg, Andrew. 'Marcus or Habermas', Inquiry 39.1 (1996): 45-70 .Habermas, Jrgen. 'Technology andSeience as ' Ideolog y", in Towards a rational

    society: studen t protest, science and politics trans. Jeremy J. Shapiro(Boston; Beacon Press, 1970).Hil l , Kevin A . and Hughes, John E. Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age ofthe Inteme t (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1999).

    Jennings, M. Kent and Zeitner, Vicki. 'Internet Use and Civic Engagement. ALongitude Analysis.' Public Opinion Q uarterly 67.3 (2003): 311-334.

    Kraut, Robert, Patterson, Michael, Lundmark, Vicki, Kiesler, Sara,Mukophadhyay, Tridas and Scherlis, William. 'Internet paradox: A socialtechno logy tha t reduces social involvement and psychologica l well-being?',>Amer/con Psyc/7o/og/si 53.9 (1998): 1017-1031.

    Langman, Lauren. 'From v irtua l public spheres to glo ba l justice: A critical theoryof internet-worked social movements'. Sociological Theory 23.1 (2005)-4 2 -74 .Marcuse, Herbert. 'The Problem of Social Change in the Technolog ical Soc iety',Doug las Kellner (ed.) Towards a Critical Theory of Society, Collected Papersof Marcuse, Herbert Vol . 2 (London and New York: Routledge, 2001 ).Marcuse. 'Some Social Implications of Modern Technology', in Douglas Kellner(ed.) Technology, War and Fascism , Collected Papers of Marcuse, HerbertVol . 1 (London and New York: Routledge, 1998).Margolis, Michael and Resnick, David. Politics as usual: The cyberspacerevolution (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2000).

    8 JOURNAL OF CRITICAL STUDIES IN BUSINESS & SOCIETY

  • 7/30/2019 Online and Offline Social

    7/7

    Online and Offline Social Movements: An Interdisciplinary Critical Insight

    Ocay, jeffry . 'Technology, Technological Dom ination, and the Great Refusal:Marcuse's Gritique of the Advanced Industrial Society', Kritike 4.1 (2010):54-78Postmes, Tom. 'The psychological dimension of collective action, online', inAdam Joinson, Katelyn McKenna, Tom Postmes and Ulf-D ietrich Reips (ed.)The Oxford handbook of Internet psychology (O xford : Oxford UniversityPress, 200 7) .

    Rosenweig, Roy. 'Wizards, Bureaucrats, Warriors and Hackers: Writing thehistory of the Internet', The American Historical Review 103.5 (1998):1530-1552.Van de Donk, Wim, Loader, Brian D., Nixon, Paul G. and Rucht, Dieter.Cyberprotest. New Media, Citizens and Social Movements (Oxford:Routledge, 2004).Van de Donk, W im , Van de Snellen, Ignace and Tops, Pieter. (ed.) O nve// in

    Athens. A perspective on informatization a nd democracy (Amsterdam: IOSPress, 1995).Webster, Frank. 'The Info rmation Society R evisited', in Leah Lievrouw and SoniaLivingstone (ed.) The Handbook of new media (London: Sage Publications,2006), 443-45 7.Wellman Barry and Hampton, Keith. 'Living Networked On and Offl ine',Contemporary Sociology 28.6 (1999): 648-65 4.Xenos, Michael and Moy, Patricia. 'D irect and Differential Effects of the Interneton Political and Civic Engagement', joumal of Communication 57 (2007):704-718.

    VOLUME 2 NUMBERS 1-2