Jernej Amon Prodnik
Jernej Amon Prodnik is an assistant professor at the Department of Journalism, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, and a researcher at the Social Communica-tion Research Centre based at the same institution. He served as the head of the Department of Journalism between 2018 and 2021. Between 2014 and 2015, he was a post-doctoral re-searcher at the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism at the Faculty of Social Sciences (PolCoRe research group), Charles University in Prague (Czechia). Since 2015 he is a part of an international research centre Desire - Centre for the study of Democracy, Signification and Resistance (www.researchcentredesire.eu).
Jernej defended his PhD in media and communication studies at the University of Ljubljana in 2013 under the title "Political Economy of Communication and Structural Transformations of Capitalism". His principal research interests encompass critique of political economy and historical transformations of capitalist societies with emphasis on media and communication. His research also focuses on the wider social context of technological changes and democratic potentials brought by the new information and communication technologies, including historical aspects of the development of media and journalism. In the past he related these interests to different facets of political communication and possible new models of democracy by connecting them to e-democracy and e-participation, public sphere, and potentials for new social movements through/because of the new ICTs. His future research will focus on the social history of journalism. His research is mainly based in different strands of critical theory.
Jernej is a member of the editorial board of international journal for critical studies of media, information and power in capitalist societies TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique (ISSN: 1726-670X) and of Slovenian critical journal Casopis za Kritiko Znanosti (Journal for the Critique of Science, ISSN: 0351-4285). In the past he worked at the Centre of Electronic Democracy (Institute of Ecology, Ljubljana), where he cooperated in applicative-research project on e-participation (co-financed by the Trust for Civil Society in CEE). He also worked as a journalist for Slovenian national newspaper Vecer.
Address: Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Ljubljana
Kardeljeva ploscad 5
1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia
Jernej defended his PhD in media and communication studies at the University of Ljubljana in 2013 under the title "Political Economy of Communication and Structural Transformations of Capitalism". His principal research interests encompass critique of political economy and historical transformations of capitalist societies with emphasis on media and communication. His research also focuses on the wider social context of technological changes and democratic potentials brought by the new information and communication technologies, including historical aspects of the development of media and journalism. In the past he related these interests to different facets of political communication and possible new models of democracy by connecting them to e-democracy and e-participation, public sphere, and potentials for new social movements through/because of the new ICTs. His future research will focus on the social history of journalism. His research is mainly based in different strands of critical theory.
Jernej is a member of the editorial board of international journal for critical studies of media, information and power in capitalist societies TripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique (ISSN: 1726-670X) and of Slovenian critical journal Casopis za Kritiko Znanosti (Journal for the Critique of Science, ISSN: 0351-4285). In the past he worked at the Centre of Electronic Democracy (Institute of Ecology, Ljubljana), where he cooperated in applicative-research project on e-participation (co-financed by the Trust for Civil Society in CEE). He also worked as a journalist for Slovenian national newspaper Vecer.
Address: Faculty of Social Sciences
University of Ljubljana
Kardeljeva ploscad 5
1000 Ljubljana
Slovenia
less
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Videos by Jernej Amon Prodnik
Abstract:
'In the last decade mediatisation has become “the key concept” (Lundby, 2014) for many scholars in the field of media and communication studies. The initial focus of this approach was on the mediatisation of politics, with the main presumption being that “media have become the most important arena for politics.” (Ampuja et al 2014) In this view, politics has largely lost its autonomy and became “dependent in its central functions on mass media.” (Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999) Today, mediatisation refers to an even more general process of social change...'
Abstract:
"In June 2020 Janez Janša, serving as the Prime Minister of Slovenia, achieved a significant feat. The total number of tweets on his Twitter account breached the 100.000 mark, in what is a significant amount for any user, not only for an active politician. In two years since, he added 70.000 more, despite actively serving as a PM for much of the time. His political communication on Twitter has attracted attention of Slovenian journalists and the general public..."
Knjiga / Book by Jernej Amon Prodnik
Izhodišča monografije so v politični ekonomiji komuniciranja, ki je temeljni kritični pristop v komunikološkem raziskovanju. Avtor podaja kritiko poblagovljenja, ki se v tem pristopu opredeljuje ko ključen proces v kapitalističnih družbah. Ob tem izpostavlja, da prav politična ekonomija komuniciranja nudi edinstven in (posebej za slovenski raziskovalni prostor) izviren pogled na (množično) komuniciranje. Le ta raziskovalna tradicija namreč s svojim teoretskim vpogledom, izgrajenim pojmovnim aparatom in obstoječimi razlagami omogoča celovito obravnavo strukturnih zgodovinskih premikov in temeljnih družbenih odnosov s posebnim fokusom na komuniciranju, medijih in informacijah.
Analize se gibljejo med temeljnimi teoretskimi vpogledi, ki izhajajo iz kritičnih družboslovnih pristopov, ter aktualnejšimi tematikami. V knjigi je med drugim podan globok zgodovinski vpogled v procese poblagovljenja komuniciranja in v ekspanzijo kapitala nasploh, obravnavana so protislovja in omejitve na področju medijev, tehnologij ter komuniciranja, ki izhajajo iz kapitalistične blagovne proizvodnje, izpostavljena je protislovnost novih informacijskih in komunikacijskih tehnologij, ki vključuje tudi razprave o družbi nadzora in nadzorstvenem kapitalizmu, izpostavljeni pa so tudi razlogi, zakaj mediji v kapitalizmu prispevajo k ohranjanju obstoječe družbene ureditve.
---------------------------------------
Contradictions of Communication: Towards a Critique of Commodification in Political Economy of Communication
(Faculty of Social Sciences Ljubljana Press, 2014).
In the current historical epoch contradictions, which often remain unsolved, have multiplied. We can attribute this to the fact that contradictions are a constitutive part of capitalist societies. The author emphasizes that in the current historical epoch contradictions also broaden and expand into communication and the communicative sphere, which lay at the centre of his analysis. Author points out that social changes and communication technologies, which cannot be analysed outside of the wider social relations, need to be analysed in a historical manner, in the context of the existing asymmetries of power, inequalities and by considering key reasons for their emergence and specific historical development.
The starting point of the monograph is in the political economy of communication, which is the key critical approach in media and communication studies. Author provides a critique of the process of commodification, which is defined (in the approach of political economy of communication) as one of the key processes in the capitalist societies, which is inherent to it. It is pointed out that political economy of communication offers a unique and (especially for Slovenian academia) original way of analysing (mass) media. Only this research tradition offers – with its theoretical insights, conceptual apparatus and existing explanations – a way of holistically analysing structural, historical changes and the most fundamental social relations, with special focus on communication, media, and information.
Analyses in the book move between fundamental theoretical insights that build on critical approaches to social sciences, and currently topical issues. A deep historical insight is offered in the processes of commodification of communication and in the expansion of capital as such. Contradictions and limits in the field of media, technologies and communication are thoroughly analysed, while different aspects of new information and communication technologies are analysed as well, because they make possible both new forms of social surveillance (and so-called surveillance capitalism) and emancipatory forms of political activism. Reasons, why media can contribute to the stabilisation of the existing order, are analysed as well.
Articles (in English) by Jernej Amon Prodnik
////
Spominske študije so se v zadnjih desetletjih razvile v plodovito interdisciplinarno raziskovalno področje, ki je veliko analitične pozornosti posvetilo tudi socialistični Jugoslaviji in njenemu razpadu. Kljub obstoju večjega števila študij o Jugoslaviji pa je vloga medijev in novinarstva v svojem delovanju bila deležna občutno manj raziskovalne pozornosti. V študiji raziskujeva, kakšno vlogo so te osrednje družbene institucije igrale v vsakodnevnih življenjih prebivalcev Jugoslavije, v kolikšni meri so jim zaupali in kako so vplivale na procese tvorjenja individualnega in kolektivnega spomina. Te problematike se lotevava prek analize 96 polstrukturiranih ustnih intervjujev z medijskimi občinstvi. Intervjuvanci so v socialistični Jugoslaviji živeli večino svojega življenja in so imeli nanjo osebne spomine, zaradi česar so lahko prispevali edinstvene in dragocene vpoglede v to zgodovinsko obdobje, ki bi jih le stežka pridobili na druge načine. Interpretativna analiza intervjujev je temeljila na deduktivnem kodiranju intervjujev, razdelila pa sva jo na tri dele: vsakodnevno uporabo medijev; zaupanje v medije in novinarstvo; ter dojemanje jugoslovanske družbe. Študija predstavlja prvi celosten kratek pregled zbranih podatkov in poudarja potencialno vrednost teh podatkov tudi za prihodnje raziskave. Zbrani podatki razkrivajo tudi, kako intervjuvanci razumejo in vrednotijo jugoslovanski režim, in na splošno zagotavljajo veliko pestrejši pogled na socialistično preteklost, kot ga je ta najpogosteje deležna v danes pogosto polarizirani javni razpravi.
Keywords:
Slovenia, news media, capitalism, global economic crisis, critical content analysis
is put forward as one of the main goals of digital inclusion. By applying user-centric and participatory approaches, assumptions are made that individuals will be empowered and, as such, will bere-included in society.
Design/methodology/approach – These assumptions, however, tend to ignore the social, economic, political and technical conditions within which individual choices are made and within which individuals must inevitably act. Instead of attempting to narrow the existing social gap between class-divided societies, and of probing the limitations given at the macro-level by questioning the wider social structure, digital inclusion policies tend to individualize problems that are in fact social in their nature.
Findings – This contribution will, therefore, aim to identify the key causes of structural (dis)empowerment and how these resonate to digital inclusion. The article positions itself within the political economy of communication research tradition and aims to confront the structural consequences of social inequalities, existing social hierarchies and power structures against mechanisms of digital inequalities and against the implementation of digital inclusion policies.
Originality/value – By proceeding from a critical perspective, it aims to demonstrate the limitations of user-centric and micro-level approaches, while questioning their normative interpretations of digital empowerment which tend to be reductionist in their essence and instrumental in their aims.
"The main goal of this paper is to conceptualize a seeping commodification. The author of the paper claims we are in the midst of a considerable qualitative transformation in the processes of commodification that is, in large part, owed to an overwhelming capitalist enclosure of the wider communicative field. The key reason for what seems to be an important qualitative transformation in the commodification process lies in the fact that communication and information flows today run through most social relations and spheres – which non-critical approaches often explain with the concept of the ‘mediatization of society’. A materialist approach, distinctive of (critical) political economy of communication, enables an apt critique of these processes. In an epoch, in which capital has enclosed the wider field of communication, mediatization is in fact nothing else than a continuing commodification of our everyday lives. The author of the paper claims that commodification of communication and informational resources must be seen as a long-term process, which has accompanied the rise of capitalism. A considerable proliferation of the economic importance of communication, information, and culture has – to be precise – been enhanced in a large part by political interventions occurring in the last decades (which were a response to the economic tendencies and crises of the time). While the immediate results are observable especially in the proliferation of the new information and communication technologies and the global role of intellectual property rights, the wider social consequences of these developments have been much broader and more influential. This study proceeds from the perspective of historical materialism and adopts dialectics in an attempt to grasp contradictory social changes. The analysis is done through different methods of historicizing: firstly, by observing long-term changes in communication, information, and culture, as they have been slowly transformed into commodities produced for market exchange since the emergence of capitalism; and, secondly, by defining fundamental political and economic processes occurring in recent decades that help with an explanation of the rise in the influence of communication and information (as peculiar types of commodities) in the current epoch.
Keywords:
Commodification; Information Society; Enclosures; Capitalism; Intellectual Property Rights; Mediatization; Critical Media and Communication History; Political Economy of Communication; Critical Communication Studies"
Abstrakt:
"Namen prispevka je konceptualizacija pronicajočega poblagovljenja. Avtor v prispevku trdi, da smo priča občutni kvalitativni spremembi v procesih poblagovljenja, ki so v veliki meri odvisni od izjemnega kapitalističnega ograjevanja širšega komunikacijskega polja. Osrednji razlog za kvalitativno transformacijo v procesih poblagovljenja je v dejstvu, da se komunikacijski in informacijski tokovi danes pretakajo skozi večino družbenih odnosov in sfer, proces, ki ga nekritični pristopi občasno označujejo s konceptom ''mediatizacije družbe''. Materialističen pristop, ki je značilen za (kritiko) politične ekonomije komuniciranja, omogoča učinkovito kritiko te konceptualizacije in omenjenih procesov. V epohi, v kateri si je kapital priključil širše polje komuninacije, je mediatizacijo potrebno videti v luči nadaljnjega poblagovljenja naših vsakdanjih življenj. Avtor v prispevku trdi, da je potrebno poblagovljenje komunikacijskih in informacijskih virov videti kot dolgoročen proces, ki je spremljal razvoj in širitev kapitalizma. Občutna proliferacija v ekonomskem pomenu komunikacije, informacij in kulture je, če smo povsem natančni, bila spodbujena v veliki meri s strani političnih intervencij, ki so se odvijale v zadnjih desetletjih (in so bile odgovor na ekonomske tendence in krizo tistega časa). Medtem ko so neposredni rezultati vidni predvsem v proliferaciji novih informacijskih in komunikacijskih tehnologij in globalne vloge intelektualnih lastniških pravic, širše posledice teh sprememb pa so bile še precej širše in vplivnejše. Pričujoča analiza temelji v pristopi zgodovinskega materializma in uporablja dialektično mišljenje, da bi razložila protislovja družbenih sprememb. Analiza je narejena skozi različne metode zgodovinskosti: prvič, z opazovanjem dolgoročnih sprememb v komunikaciji, informacijah in kulturi, ki so bile spremenjene v blaga, proizvedena za tržno menjavo od začetkov kapitalizma; in drugič, z opredelitvijo temeljnih političnih in ekonomskih procesov, ki so se odvijali v zadnjih desetletjih in lahko pomagajo pri razlagi vzpona komunikacijskih in informacijskih oblik (posebnega) blaga ter njihovem izjemnem vplivu v obstoječi družbeni epohi."
Abstract
"The commodity-form played an important, if often overlooked, role in the studies of capitalism. Processes of transforming literally anything into a privatized form of (fictitious) commodity that is exchanged in the circulation process are of fundamental importance for the rise and reproduction of capitalism. At the same time the commodity, as the “cell-form of capitalism”, has played a crucial role throughout Marx’s oeuvre. The central aim of the paper is to demonstrate how the commodity-form develops in his works (both as a part of his “global” argument and in the context of historical changes) and what role it plays in some of the key works of critical theory. Furthermore, the aim is to show how this topic was approached in critical communication studies and has been analysed in the political economy of communication. The latter is done principally through a reappraisal of the “blind spot debate” initiated by Dallas W. Smythe and the audience commodity thesis, in which it was raised. This long-lasting debate, which at least indirectly continues to date, can be seen as an invaluable source for practices and ideas connected to both Marxian-inspired critical communication studies and to a serious analysis of the continuing commodification of different spheres of society and its increasing pervasiveness in contemporary life. In the last section, these findings are connected to some of the recent neo-Marxist approaches, especially to the findings of the authors coming from the autonomist (post-operaist) movement. Insights into this intellectual strand can provide an understanding of the ongoing commodification processes, while also offering possibilities of convergence with Smythe’s approach."
Abstrakt
"Abstrakt: Blagovna forma je igrala pomembno, čeprav pogosto spregledano vlogo v študijah kapitalizma. Procesi spreminjanja praktično vsega v privatizirane (fiktivne) oblike blaga, ki so izmenjane v menjalnem procesu, so ključnega pomena za vzpon in obnavljanje kapitalizma. Istočasno je blagovna forma, kot ''celična forma kapitalizma'', igrala pomembno vlogo skozi celoten Marxov opus. Osrednji namen pričujočega prispevka je prikazati, kako se je blagovna forma razvila v Marxovih delih in kakšno vlogo igra v nekaterih pomembnejših delih kritične teorije. Nadalje je namen pričujočega prispevka pokazati, kako so se s to tematiko ukvarjale kritične komunikacijske študije in kako je bila analizirana v politični ekonomiji komuniciranja. Slednje je doseženo z vnovičnim vpogledom v ''debato o slepih pegah'', ki jo je pričel Dallas W. Smythe s tezo o občinstvih kot posebni obliki blaga. Ta obsežna in dolgo trajajoča debata, ki vsaj posredno poteka še danes, s seboj prinaša neprecenljive vire praks in idej povezanih z komunikacijskimi študijami, na katere je imel vpliv marksizem, in k resni analizi nadaljnjih procesov komodifikacije različnih sfer družbe in njenega vztrajnega prodiranja skozi človeška življenja. V zadnjem delu so ugotovitve v prispevku navezane na nekatere nedavno objavljene neo-marksistične analize, predvsem na ugotovitve avtorjev, ki izhajajo iz avtonomističnega (post-operaističnega) gibanja. Vpogledi v ta paradigmatski pristop lahko podajo razumevanje nadaljnjih procesov komodifikacije, pri čemer ponujajo tudi možnosti za konvergenco s Smythovim pristopom."
Articles / Članki (in Slovene) by Jernej Amon Prodnik
Abstract (ENG): Acceleration is a constitutive part of modern society, which has been observed by social scientists already in the 19th century. The article is based on a holistic definition of acceleration that uses Hartmut Rosa's theoretic model in which he separates between analytically distinct, but mutually dependent dimensions of acceleration. Amongst them is technological acceleration, where in communications telegraph and digitalization have had the most notable impact. Lately algorithms are seen as technologies with potential for a vast social impact. Their basic features in digital capitalism include: (1) opacity, (2) datafication, (3) automation, and (4) instrumental rationalization. Consequences of these characteristics are multifaceted, amongst them further push for acceleration because of automation. I then assess the relationship between journalism and time, which is inseparable from journalistic work. The need for immediacy, instantaneousness and promptness is not only a part of journalistic practice, but also ideological foundation of journalistic profession. This has consequences for its normative presuppositions, which will also be influenced by algorithms. I propose two speculative scenarions: pessimistic one, with further acceleration of journalistic work and mass layoffs, where algorithms are a replacement for journalists, and an optimistic one, where algorithms take over routine tasks and supplement their work, leading to a rise in quality.
** English Summary **
The article provides an assessment of mediatization, which has established itself as “the key concept” (Lundby, 2014) and one of the central approaches in media and communication studies. Between 1990 and 2000 only 38 and 19 publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science mentioned mediatization. This was followed by an exponential growth between 2000 and 2017, with 3843 and 908 publications mentioning this concept, respectively. The main goal of mediatization is to explain the transformations of social relations because of the increased power of the media. Media are thus perceived as the cause of social changes, with different processes, institutions and actors either adapting to the media or changing because of them.
In the article I provide an overview of the approach, which has rarely been assessed in the Slovenian academic milieu despite being increasingly used by different researchers. I differentiate between the strong (institutionalist) and the weak (constructivist) approach to mediatization (largely based on Ampuja et al 2014). My primary goal is to provide theoretical and empirical critique, which is primarily aimed at the strong approach that presupposes a linear influence of the mass media on various institutions. In this approach, for example, mediatization of politics suggests that institutional politics increasingly has to adapt to the media logic, which is a set of typical rules and routines of the media that include simplification, visualization and personalization. In this sense, “media have become the most important arena for politics.” (Ibid.)
The article is empirically based on semi-structured interviews with representatives of Slovenian political parties, who were asked about the media and their power in setting the framework for politics. The paper looks at different inconsistencies present in the responses of the interviewees, which also point in the direction of blame-shifting and deeper power struggles within society. I thus try to modestly contribute to the existing research on political communication in Slovenia, but the interviews are mainly illustrative and the goal of my paper is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the relations between politics and the media. The interviews are used as a way of demonstrating fundamental fallacies present in mediatization, even if at first glance its validity may seem self-evident, especially taking into consideration the all-pervasiveness of the media in today’s societies. An in-depth inquiry indicates that mediatization remains a largely undeveloped approach that lacks real explanatory value. As I point out, its main problem is that it perceives power of the media in an abstract manner. Even though authors advocate a holistic analytical approach, writings on mediatization are in fact narrowly focused on the media and their relations with particular parts of society, with no intention of embedding media in the social totality. As I argue further, the reasons for these problems are ontological, epistemological and theoretical fallacies. Since ontological deficiencies have been criticized by other authors, I point out three fundamental epistemological and theoretical issues:
(1) Mediatization does not differentiate between form and content of communication in the media, consequently failing to acknowledge that changes in the form of communication (influence of the media logic) do not automatically lead to changes in the power relations, especially when it comes to amplification of particular voices through the media. By contrast, authors focusing on the media sources have for decades emphasized vast inequalities when researching which social groups are used as journalistic sources. As noted by Schudson (2011: 13), one of the reasons “people tend to exaggerate media power is that they do not distinguish the media’s power from the power of the people and the events the media cover.”
(2) Mediatization fails to make a proper distinction between public political communication and political activity, thus conflating changes in the form of political communication with changes in politics as such. While political communication should indeed be seen as an important part of institutional politics, it is unacceptably reductionist to simply equate the two. As noted by Van Aelst et al (2014: 207): “The media logic definitely affects what politicians talk about, but there is much less proof that it influences what politicians actually do.”
(3) Mediatization ignores non-public parts of politics and inequalities in social relations of power. Since mediatization focuses almost solely on the media, it fails to notice that not all political activity is public, often intentionally so. Taking into consideration increased global inequalities and the power of corporate capital, there are many other actors, processes and institutions that influence the political process. Similarly, attempts at controlling public communication go far beyond politics and the media and include systemic propaganda, corporate public relations and pressures of socially powerful groups.
Mediatization more or less bypasses all of these issues, meaning it wants to discuss increased power and influence of the media without asking the question that necessarily follows: what are the wider relations of power in capitalist society and how are they changing?
------------------------------------
IZVLEČEK: Mediatizacija se je v zadnjem desetletju vzpostavila kot osrednji pristop v raziskovanju medijev in komuniciranja. Njen cilj je razlaga sprememb, ki naj bi jih zaradi naraščajoče moči na družbi povzročali mediji. Cilj članka je teoretska in empirična kritika institucionalističnega (močnega) pristopa k mediatizaciji, pri čemer se opiram na poglobljene polstrukturirane intervjuje s predstavniki slovenskih političnih strank. Kot ugotavljam, je osrednja težava mediatizacije dejstvo, da moč medijev dojema povsem abstraktno, sočasno pa ignorira širše odnose moči v družbi. Kljub zagovarjanju holizma so avtorji ozko osredotočeni le na medije, ne da bi jih umeščali v družbeno totaliteto. Ontološke, epistemološke in teoretske težave pristopa predstavljam na konkretnih primerih, pri čemer se opiram na sociologijo medijev in politično ekonomijo komuniciranja.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: mediatizacija, politično komuniciranje, medijska logika, politične stranke, sociologija medijev, politična ekonomija komuniciranja
Abstract:
'In the last decade mediatisation has become “the key concept” (Lundby, 2014) for many scholars in the field of media and communication studies. The initial focus of this approach was on the mediatisation of politics, with the main presumption being that “media have become the most important arena for politics.” (Ampuja et al 2014) In this view, politics has largely lost its autonomy and became “dependent in its central functions on mass media.” (Mazzoleni and Schulz, 1999) Today, mediatisation refers to an even more general process of social change...'
Abstract:
"In June 2020 Janez Janša, serving as the Prime Minister of Slovenia, achieved a significant feat. The total number of tweets on his Twitter account breached the 100.000 mark, in what is a significant amount for any user, not only for an active politician. In two years since, he added 70.000 more, despite actively serving as a PM for much of the time. His political communication on Twitter has attracted attention of Slovenian journalists and the general public..."
Izhodišča monografije so v politični ekonomiji komuniciranja, ki je temeljni kritični pristop v komunikološkem raziskovanju. Avtor podaja kritiko poblagovljenja, ki se v tem pristopu opredeljuje ko ključen proces v kapitalističnih družbah. Ob tem izpostavlja, da prav politična ekonomija komuniciranja nudi edinstven in (posebej za slovenski raziskovalni prostor) izviren pogled na (množično) komuniciranje. Le ta raziskovalna tradicija namreč s svojim teoretskim vpogledom, izgrajenim pojmovnim aparatom in obstoječimi razlagami omogoča celovito obravnavo strukturnih zgodovinskih premikov in temeljnih družbenih odnosov s posebnim fokusom na komuniciranju, medijih in informacijah.
Analize se gibljejo med temeljnimi teoretskimi vpogledi, ki izhajajo iz kritičnih družboslovnih pristopov, ter aktualnejšimi tematikami. V knjigi je med drugim podan globok zgodovinski vpogled v procese poblagovljenja komuniciranja in v ekspanzijo kapitala nasploh, obravnavana so protislovja in omejitve na področju medijev, tehnologij ter komuniciranja, ki izhajajo iz kapitalistične blagovne proizvodnje, izpostavljena je protislovnost novih informacijskih in komunikacijskih tehnologij, ki vključuje tudi razprave o družbi nadzora in nadzorstvenem kapitalizmu, izpostavljeni pa so tudi razlogi, zakaj mediji v kapitalizmu prispevajo k ohranjanju obstoječe družbene ureditve.
---------------------------------------
Contradictions of Communication: Towards a Critique of Commodification in Political Economy of Communication
(Faculty of Social Sciences Ljubljana Press, 2014).
In the current historical epoch contradictions, which often remain unsolved, have multiplied. We can attribute this to the fact that contradictions are a constitutive part of capitalist societies. The author emphasizes that in the current historical epoch contradictions also broaden and expand into communication and the communicative sphere, which lay at the centre of his analysis. Author points out that social changes and communication technologies, which cannot be analysed outside of the wider social relations, need to be analysed in a historical manner, in the context of the existing asymmetries of power, inequalities and by considering key reasons for their emergence and specific historical development.
The starting point of the monograph is in the political economy of communication, which is the key critical approach in media and communication studies. Author provides a critique of the process of commodification, which is defined (in the approach of political economy of communication) as one of the key processes in the capitalist societies, which is inherent to it. It is pointed out that political economy of communication offers a unique and (especially for Slovenian academia) original way of analysing (mass) media. Only this research tradition offers – with its theoretical insights, conceptual apparatus and existing explanations – a way of holistically analysing structural, historical changes and the most fundamental social relations, with special focus on communication, media, and information.
Analyses in the book move between fundamental theoretical insights that build on critical approaches to social sciences, and currently topical issues. A deep historical insight is offered in the processes of commodification of communication and in the expansion of capital as such. Contradictions and limits in the field of media, technologies and communication are thoroughly analysed, while different aspects of new information and communication technologies are analysed as well, because they make possible both new forms of social surveillance (and so-called surveillance capitalism) and emancipatory forms of political activism. Reasons, why media can contribute to the stabilisation of the existing order, are analysed as well.
////
Spominske študije so se v zadnjih desetletjih razvile v plodovito interdisciplinarno raziskovalno področje, ki je veliko analitične pozornosti posvetilo tudi socialistični Jugoslaviji in njenemu razpadu. Kljub obstoju večjega števila študij o Jugoslaviji pa je vloga medijev in novinarstva v svojem delovanju bila deležna občutno manj raziskovalne pozornosti. V študiji raziskujeva, kakšno vlogo so te osrednje družbene institucije igrale v vsakodnevnih življenjih prebivalcev Jugoslavije, v kolikšni meri so jim zaupali in kako so vplivale na procese tvorjenja individualnega in kolektivnega spomina. Te problematike se lotevava prek analize 96 polstrukturiranih ustnih intervjujev z medijskimi občinstvi. Intervjuvanci so v socialistični Jugoslaviji živeli večino svojega življenja in so imeli nanjo osebne spomine, zaradi česar so lahko prispevali edinstvene in dragocene vpoglede v to zgodovinsko obdobje, ki bi jih le stežka pridobili na druge načine. Interpretativna analiza intervjujev je temeljila na deduktivnem kodiranju intervjujev, razdelila pa sva jo na tri dele: vsakodnevno uporabo medijev; zaupanje v medije in novinarstvo; ter dojemanje jugoslovanske družbe. Študija predstavlja prvi celosten kratek pregled zbranih podatkov in poudarja potencialno vrednost teh podatkov tudi za prihodnje raziskave. Zbrani podatki razkrivajo tudi, kako intervjuvanci razumejo in vrednotijo jugoslovanski režim, in na splošno zagotavljajo veliko pestrejši pogled na socialistično preteklost, kot ga je ta najpogosteje deležna v danes pogosto polarizirani javni razpravi.
Keywords:
Slovenia, news media, capitalism, global economic crisis, critical content analysis
is put forward as one of the main goals of digital inclusion. By applying user-centric and participatory approaches, assumptions are made that individuals will be empowered and, as such, will bere-included in society.
Design/methodology/approach – These assumptions, however, tend to ignore the social, economic, political and technical conditions within which individual choices are made and within which individuals must inevitably act. Instead of attempting to narrow the existing social gap between class-divided societies, and of probing the limitations given at the macro-level by questioning the wider social structure, digital inclusion policies tend to individualize problems that are in fact social in their nature.
Findings – This contribution will, therefore, aim to identify the key causes of structural (dis)empowerment and how these resonate to digital inclusion. The article positions itself within the political economy of communication research tradition and aims to confront the structural consequences of social inequalities, existing social hierarchies and power structures against mechanisms of digital inequalities and against the implementation of digital inclusion policies.
Originality/value – By proceeding from a critical perspective, it aims to demonstrate the limitations of user-centric and micro-level approaches, while questioning their normative interpretations of digital empowerment which tend to be reductionist in their essence and instrumental in their aims.
"The main goal of this paper is to conceptualize a seeping commodification. The author of the paper claims we are in the midst of a considerable qualitative transformation in the processes of commodification that is, in large part, owed to an overwhelming capitalist enclosure of the wider communicative field. The key reason for what seems to be an important qualitative transformation in the commodification process lies in the fact that communication and information flows today run through most social relations and spheres – which non-critical approaches often explain with the concept of the ‘mediatization of society’. A materialist approach, distinctive of (critical) political economy of communication, enables an apt critique of these processes. In an epoch, in which capital has enclosed the wider field of communication, mediatization is in fact nothing else than a continuing commodification of our everyday lives. The author of the paper claims that commodification of communication and informational resources must be seen as a long-term process, which has accompanied the rise of capitalism. A considerable proliferation of the economic importance of communication, information, and culture has – to be precise – been enhanced in a large part by political interventions occurring in the last decades (which were a response to the economic tendencies and crises of the time). While the immediate results are observable especially in the proliferation of the new information and communication technologies and the global role of intellectual property rights, the wider social consequences of these developments have been much broader and more influential. This study proceeds from the perspective of historical materialism and adopts dialectics in an attempt to grasp contradictory social changes. The analysis is done through different methods of historicizing: firstly, by observing long-term changes in communication, information, and culture, as they have been slowly transformed into commodities produced for market exchange since the emergence of capitalism; and, secondly, by defining fundamental political and economic processes occurring in recent decades that help with an explanation of the rise in the influence of communication and information (as peculiar types of commodities) in the current epoch.
Keywords:
Commodification; Information Society; Enclosures; Capitalism; Intellectual Property Rights; Mediatization; Critical Media and Communication History; Political Economy of Communication; Critical Communication Studies"
Abstrakt:
"Namen prispevka je konceptualizacija pronicajočega poblagovljenja. Avtor v prispevku trdi, da smo priča občutni kvalitativni spremembi v procesih poblagovljenja, ki so v veliki meri odvisni od izjemnega kapitalističnega ograjevanja širšega komunikacijskega polja. Osrednji razlog za kvalitativno transformacijo v procesih poblagovljenja je v dejstvu, da se komunikacijski in informacijski tokovi danes pretakajo skozi večino družbenih odnosov in sfer, proces, ki ga nekritični pristopi občasno označujejo s konceptom ''mediatizacije družbe''. Materialističen pristop, ki je značilen za (kritiko) politične ekonomije komuniciranja, omogoča učinkovito kritiko te konceptualizacije in omenjenih procesov. V epohi, v kateri si je kapital priključil širše polje komuninacije, je mediatizacijo potrebno videti v luči nadaljnjega poblagovljenja naših vsakdanjih življenj. Avtor v prispevku trdi, da je potrebno poblagovljenje komunikacijskih in informacijskih virov videti kot dolgoročen proces, ki je spremljal razvoj in širitev kapitalizma. Občutna proliferacija v ekonomskem pomenu komunikacije, informacij in kulture je, če smo povsem natančni, bila spodbujena v veliki meri s strani političnih intervencij, ki so se odvijale v zadnjih desetletjih (in so bile odgovor na ekonomske tendence in krizo tistega časa). Medtem ko so neposredni rezultati vidni predvsem v proliferaciji novih informacijskih in komunikacijskih tehnologij in globalne vloge intelektualnih lastniških pravic, širše posledice teh sprememb pa so bile še precej širše in vplivnejše. Pričujoča analiza temelji v pristopi zgodovinskega materializma in uporablja dialektično mišljenje, da bi razložila protislovja družbenih sprememb. Analiza je narejena skozi različne metode zgodovinskosti: prvič, z opazovanjem dolgoročnih sprememb v komunikaciji, informacijah in kulturi, ki so bile spremenjene v blaga, proizvedena za tržno menjavo od začetkov kapitalizma; in drugič, z opredelitvijo temeljnih političnih in ekonomskih procesov, ki so se odvijali v zadnjih desetletjih in lahko pomagajo pri razlagi vzpona komunikacijskih in informacijskih oblik (posebnega) blaga ter njihovem izjemnem vplivu v obstoječi družbeni epohi."
Abstract
"The commodity-form played an important, if often overlooked, role in the studies of capitalism. Processes of transforming literally anything into a privatized form of (fictitious) commodity that is exchanged in the circulation process are of fundamental importance for the rise and reproduction of capitalism. At the same time the commodity, as the “cell-form of capitalism”, has played a crucial role throughout Marx’s oeuvre. The central aim of the paper is to demonstrate how the commodity-form develops in his works (both as a part of his “global” argument and in the context of historical changes) and what role it plays in some of the key works of critical theory. Furthermore, the aim is to show how this topic was approached in critical communication studies and has been analysed in the political economy of communication. The latter is done principally through a reappraisal of the “blind spot debate” initiated by Dallas W. Smythe and the audience commodity thesis, in which it was raised. This long-lasting debate, which at least indirectly continues to date, can be seen as an invaluable source for practices and ideas connected to both Marxian-inspired critical communication studies and to a serious analysis of the continuing commodification of different spheres of society and its increasing pervasiveness in contemporary life. In the last section, these findings are connected to some of the recent neo-Marxist approaches, especially to the findings of the authors coming from the autonomist (post-operaist) movement. Insights into this intellectual strand can provide an understanding of the ongoing commodification processes, while also offering possibilities of convergence with Smythe’s approach."
Abstrakt
"Abstrakt: Blagovna forma je igrala pomembno, čeprav pogosto spregledano vlogo v študijah kapitalizma. Procesi spreminjanja praktično vsega v privatizirane (fiktivne) oblike blaga, ki so izmenjane v menjalnem procesu, so ključnega pomena za vzpon in obnavljanje kapitalizma. Istočasno je blagovna forma, kot ''celična forma kapitalizma'', igrala pomembno vlogo skozi celoten Marxov opus. Osrednji namen pričujočega prispevka je prikazati, kako se je blagovna forma razvila v Marxovih delih in kakšno vlogo igra v nekaterih pomembnejših delih kritične teorije. Nadalje je namen pričujočega prispevka pokazati, kako so se s to tematiko ukvarjale kritične komunikacijske študije in kako je bila analizirana v politični ekonomiji komuniciranja. Slednje je doseženo z vnovičnim vpogledom v ''debato o slepih pegah'', ki jo je pričel Dallas W. Smythe s tezo o občinstvih kot posebni obliki blaga. Ta obsežna in dolgo trajajoča debata, ki vsaj posredno poteka še danes, s seboj prinaša neprecenljive vire praks in idej povezanih z komunikacijskimi študijami, na katere je imel vpliv marksizem, in k resni analizi nadaljnjih procesov komodifikacije različnih sfer družbe in njenega vztrajnega prodiranja skozi človeška življenja. V zadnjem delu so ugotovitve v prispevku navezane na nekatere nedavno objavljene neo-marksistične analize, predvsem na ugotovitve avtorjev, ki izhajajo iz avtonomističnega (post-operaističnega) gibanja. Vpogledi v ta paradigmatski pristop lahko podajo razumevanje nadaljnjih procesov komodifikacije, pri čemer ponujajo tudi možnosti za konvergenco s Smythovim pristopom."
Abstract (ENG): Acceleration is a constitutive part of modern society, which has been observed by social scientists already in the 19th century. The article is based on a holistic definition of acceleration that uses Hartmut Rosa's theoretic model in which he separates between analytically distinct, but mutually dependent dimensions of acceleration. Amongst them is technological acceleration, where in communications telegraph and digitalization have had the most notable impact. Lately algorithms are seen as technologies with potential for a vast social impact. Their basic features in digital capitalism include: (1) opacity, (2) datafication, (3) automation, and (4) instrumental rationalization. Consequences of these characteristics are multifaceted, amongst them further push for acceleration because of automation. I then assess the relationship between journalism and time, which is inseparable from journalistic work. The need for immediacy, instantaneousness and promptness is not only a part of journalistic practice, but also ideological foundation of journalistic profession. This has consequences for its normative presuppositions, which will also be influenced by algorithms. I propose two speculative scenarions: pessimistic one, with further acceleration of journalistic work and mass layoffs, where algorithms are a replacement for journalists, and an optimistic one, where algorithms take over routine tasks and supplement their work, leading to a rise in quality.
** English Summary **
The article provides an assessment of mediatization, which has established itself as “the key concept” (Lundby, 2014) and one of the central approaches in media and communication studies. Between 1990 and 2000 only 38 and 19 publications indexed in Scopus and Web of Science mentioned mediatization. This was followed by an exponential growth between 2000 and 2017, with 3843 and 908 publications mentioning this concept, respectively. The main goal of mediatization is to explain the transformations of social relations because of the increased power of the media. Media are thus perceived as the cause of social changes, with different processes, institutions and actors either adapting to the media or changing because of them.
In the article I provide an overview of the approach, which has rarely been assessed in the Slovenian academic milieu despite being increasingly used by different researchers. I differentiate between the strong (institutionalist) and the weak (constructivist) approach to mediatization (largely based on Ampuja et al 2014). My primary goal is to provide theoretical and empirical critique, which is primarily aimed at the strong approach that presupposes a linear influence of the mass media on various institutions. In this approach, for example, mediatization of politics suggests that institutional politics increasingly has to adapt to the media logic, which is a set of typical rules and routines of the media that include simplification, visualization and personalization. In this sense, “media have become the most important arena for politics.” (Ibid.)
The article is empirically based on semi-structured interviews with representatives of Slovenian political parties, who were asked about the media and their power in setting the framework for politics. The paper looks at different inconsistencies present in the responses of the interviewees, which also point in the direction of blame-shifting and deeper power struggles within society. I thus try to modestly contribute to the existing research on political communication in Slovenia, but the interviews are mainly illustrative and the goal of my paper is not to provide a comprehensive overview of the relations between politics and the media. The interviews are used as a way of demonstrating fundamental fallacies present in mediatization, even if at first glance its validity may seem self-evident, especially taking into consideration the all-pervasiveness of the media in today’s societies. An in-depth inquiry indicates that mediatization remains a largely undeveloped approach that lacks real explanatory value. As I point out, its main problem is that it perceives power of the media in an abstract manner. Even though authors advocate a holistic analytical approach, writings on mediatization are in fact narrowly focused on the media and their relations with particular parts of society, with no intention of embedding media in the social totality. As I argue further, the reasons for these problems are ontological, epistemological and theoretical fallacies. Since ontological deficiencies have been criticized by other authors, I point out three fundamental epistemological and theoretical issues:
(1) Mediatization does not differentiate between form and content of communication in the media, consequently failing to acknowledge that changes in the form of communication (influence of the media logic) do not automatically lead to changes in the power relations, especially when it comes to amplification of particular voices through the media. By contrast, authors focusing on the media sources have for decades emphasized vast inequalities when researching which social groups are used as journalistic sources. As noted by Schudson (2011: 13), one of the reasons “people tend to exaggerate media power is that they do not distinguish the media’s power from the power of the people and the events the media cover.”
(2) Mediatization fails to make a proper distinction between public political communication and political activity, thus conflating changes in the form of political communication with changes in politics as such. While political communication should indeed be seen as an important part of institutional politics, it is unacceptably reductionist to simply equate the two. As noted by Van Aelst et al (2014: 207): “The media logic definitely affects what politicians talk about, but there is much less proof that it influences what politicians actually do.”
(3) Mediatization ignores non-public parts of politics and inequalities in social relations of power. Since mediatization focuses almost solely on the media, it fails to notice that not all political activity is public, often intentionally so. Taking into consideration increased global inequalities and the power of corporate capital, there are many other actors, processes and institutions that influence the political process. Similarly, attempts at controlling public communication go far beyond politics and the media and include systemic propaganda, corporate public relations and pressures of socially powerful groups.
Mediatization more or less bypasses all of these issues, meaning it wants to discuss increased power and influence of the media without asking the question that necessarily follows: what are the wider relations of power in capitalist society and how are they changing?
------------------------------------
IZVLEČEK: Mediatizacija se je v zadnjem desetletju vzpostavila kot osrednji pristop v raziskovanju medijev in komuniciranja. Njen cilj je razlaga sprememb, ki naj bi jih zaradi naraščajoče moči na družbi povzročali mediji. Cilj članka je teoretska in empirična kritika institucionalističnega (močnega) pristopa k mediatizaciji, pri čemer se opiram na poglobljene polstrukturirane intervjuje s predstavniki slovenskih političnih strank. Kot ugotavljam, je osrednja težava mediatizacije dejstvo, da moč medijev dojema povsem abstraktno, sočasno pa ignorira širše odnose moči v družbi. Kljub zagovarjanju holizma so avtorji ozko osredotočeni le na medije, ne da bi jih umeščali v družbeno totaliteto. Ontološke, epistemološke in teoretske težave pristopa predstavljam na konkretnih primerih, pri čemer se opiram na sociologijo medijev in politično ekonomijo komuniciranja.
KLJUČNE BESEDE: mediatizacija, politično komuniciranje, medijska logika, politične stranke, sociologija medijev, politična ekonomija komuniciranja
Časnik Slovenski narod je pričel izhajati leta 1868 in 1873. postal prvi dnevnik v slovenskem jeziku. Kot velik del preostalega časopisja, ki je izhajalo v devetnajstem stoletju, je bil aktivno vpet v politične boje. V prispevku sem se osredotočil na njegovo vlogo pri zamišljanju in širitvi slovenske nacionalne identitete. Pri tem sem se oprl na proces zamišljanja skupnosti prek oblikovanja specifičnih solidarnosti (Benedict Anderson), izpostavil pa sem tudi neposredno vsebinsko promocijo nacionalne ideje prek časopisov. Slovenski narod sem v prispevku obravnaval v kontekstu vzpona nacionalizmov, ki so zaznamovali devetnajsto stoletje, časopise v slovenščini pa sem postavil v odnos s periodiko iz drugih okolij. Zanimalo me je, če so nacionalistične težnje obstajale drugod – analizo sem vpel v širši mednarodni kontekst – in v kakšni meri so mogoče posplošitve. Ker so v prispevku obravnavani čas zaznamovali globoki družbeni prelomi, ki so presegali lokalne okvire, sem obravnavane institucije in procese umestil v kontekst t. i. dolgega devetnajstega stoletja.
English title of the article: "The Role of Newspapers in the Emergence of Nationalisms: The Newspaper Slovenski narod in the Context of the Long 19th Century"
ABSTRACT
The newspaper Slovenski narod (Slovenian Nation) was initially published in 1868 and became the first daily paper to be published in the Slovenian language in 1873. Like most other newspapers published in the 19th century, it was firmly entrenched in political struggles. The paper focuses on its role in imagining and expanding the Slovenian national identity. The study is based on the process of how communities become imagined through the construction of specific solidarities (Benedict Anderson), while also focusing on the direct promotion of national identity via nationalistic content in newspapers. Slovenski narod is analysed in the context of the rise of nationalisms that characterised the 19th century, with newspapers published in the Slovenian language related to periodicals released in other comparable states and milieus. I was interested in whether similar tendencies existed elsewhere – thus enabling a wider, international perspective – and whether any generalisations are possible. Because the 19th century was defined by deep social transformations that went beyond local frameworks, the analysed institutions and processes are dealt with in the context of the long 19th century.
Abstract: The article presents the efforts to establish a new international (later: world) information and communication order. The flourishing of the political economy of communication in the seventies, when issues of global inequality of information and communication flows and their role in the strenghening of the global hegemony of American capitalism came to the foreground, has contributed significantly to the establishment of these demands. Under the influence of the non-aligned movement, demands for a more democratic information and communication order were an important topic of discussion in UNESCO in the latter half of the seventies. Yet the aggressive reaction of the USA and Great Britain, which withdrew from UNESCO as a sign of protest against its treatment of issues of information and communication, has thwarted these efforts.
Keywords: Keywords: New international economic order, MacBride commission, New world information and communication order, political economy of communication, history of communication research, right to communicate
Povzetek: V članku predstaviva prizadevanja za uveljavitev nove mednarodne (pozneje: svetovne) informacijske in komunikacijske ureditve. K oblikovanju teh zahtev je pripomogel razcvet politične ekonomije komuniciranja v sedemdesetih letih 20. stoletja, kjer so v ospredje med drugim prišla vprašanja globalnih neenakosti v informacijskih in komunikacijskih tokovih in njihova vloga pri zagotavljanju globalne hegemonije ameriškega kapitalizma. Zahteve po bolj demokratični informacijski in komunikacijski ureditvi so konec sedemdesetih let predvsem na pobudo gibanja neuvrščenih zavzele pomembno mesto v Unescu, vendar so bile kmalu zatrte predvsem zaradi ostrega odziva ZDA in Velike Britanije, ki so, prav zaradi nestrinjanja z načinom obravnave informacijske in komunikacijske problematike protestno izstopili iz Unesca.
Ključne besede: nova mednarodna ekonomska ureditev, MacBridova komisija, Nova svetovna informacijska in komunikacijska ureditev, politična ekonomija komuniciranja, zgodovina komunikologije, pravica do komuniciranja
ABSTRACT: In the first part of the article, the basic presuppositions and characteristics of the political economy of communication are defined. This is a research area that lacks adequate theoretical foundations in Slovenian research sphere. In the second part of the article, emphasis is put on the key points made by the authors that can be seen as providing the constituents for political economy approach to media (namely Marx, Bücher, and Sinclair). In the last part of the article, the key tendencies of media in the capitalist political economic context are laid out by providing a historical contextualization of their development, basing it especially on the role of the advertising in their transformation since the start of the 20th century. One of the main goals of the article is to demonstrate how the anonymous mechanisms of commodity exchange in the capitalist media market are at least as important in reinstating the social consensus and (re)production of the existing class and ideological relations as the (presumably intentional) role of the media owners in influencing (the content or ideology of) the mass media.
KEYWORDS: Political economy of media, political economy of communication, critical theory, critical communication studies, capitalism, advertising, commodity form.
ABSTRAKT: Prispevek v prvem delu opredeljuje temeljne predpostavke in karakteristike politične ekonomije komuniciranja. Gre za področje, ki je v slovenskem raziskovalnem prostoru brez primerne teoretske utemeljitve. V drugem delu so izpostavljeni ključni poudarki avtorjev, ki jih je mogoče označiti za intelektualne predhodnike politično-ekonomskega pristopa k medijem: Marxa, Bücherja in Sinclairja. V zadnjem delu so na podlagi zgodovinske kontekstualizacije izpostavljene tendence medijev v kapitalizmu, pri čemer je fokus predvsem na vlogi oglaševanja pri zgodovinskih spremembah medijev. Eden izmed ciljev prispevka je pokazati, da so anonimni mehanizmi blagovne menjave na kapitalističnem medijskem trgu vsaj tako pomembni pri vzpostavljanju družbenega konsenza in (re)produkciji obstoječih razrednih in ideoloških odnosov, kot je (potencialno namerna) vloga lastnikov medijev pri vplivu na vsebine, ki jih posredujejo množični mediji
Ključne besede: Politična ekonomija komuniciranja, politična ekonomija medijev, kritična teorija, kritična komunikologija, kapitalizem, oglaševanje, blagovna forma.
Abstract in English language:
"The article reflects the findings of a quantitative analysis of the websites of Slovenian political institutions regarding three different but related aspects. In accordance with the functionalist model in classical communication theory – 'Who communicates what in what way?' – the analysis focuses on the online informational and communication patterns of political institutions. Conducted in March 2014 on a sample of 63 websites, the study included governmental, legislatorial institutions and the sphere of civil society before an election for the European Parliament, and offers a comparative view of the biggest political actors in the Slovenian online political space. By accommodating the Habermasian model of political arenas of communication, the study enables a comparison between weak and strong politics and between individualised politics of personas with institutional politics. The results show that the websites of political institutions are less politically structured and more media-oriented: participatory forms of online behaviour are less present than the expansion of news, video contents and other visual promo tional materials. However, the evident move by political actors into online social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, is still not built on the potential for the greater participation of citizens and their inclusion in political decision-making. Such findings demand a critical understanding of political actors and their role in the online construction of 'digital citizens' today. "
Keywords Institutional politics, online websites, public sphere, digital citizens, participatory communication, social media
Povzetek:
"Prispevek predstavlja rezultate kvantitativne analize spletnih mest slovenskih političnih institucij, in sicer s treh različnih, a med seboj povezanih vidikov. Skladno z v komunikologiji tradicionalnim izhodiščem funkcionalnega modela – 'Kdo sporoča kaj in na kakšen način?' – analiziramo informacijske in komunikacijske vzorce političnih institucij na spletu. Raziskava, opravljena v marcu 2014 na vzorcu 63 spletnih mest, ki je vključevala izvršno, sodno, zakonodajno oblast in civilnodružbeno sfero političnega prizorišča v Sloveniji pred kampanjo za volitve v Evropski parlament, omogoča primerjalni vpogled v delovanje slovenskih političnih akterjev na spletu. Ta skozi nadgradnjo Habermasovega modela aren političnega komuniciranja ponuja kontrastiranje t. i. močne politične sfere s »šibko« politiko in primerjavo med t. i. individualizirano »politiko oseb« in institucionalno politiko. Rezultati kažejo, da postajajo spletna mesta političnih institucij vse manj politično in vse bolj medijsko strukturirana: programske in participatorne oblike delovanja prehiteva razmah novičarstva, videovsebin in drugih vizualnih promocijskih mehanizmov. Premik akterjev v spletna omrežja ob tem ni nujno utemeljen na možnostih za večjo participacijo državljanov in njihovo vključevanje v procese odločanja, kar zahteva ponovni premislek o razumevanju političnih akterjev in njihovi vlogi pri ustvarjeni podobi državljanov v digitalnem okolju."
Ključne besede: institucionalna politika, spletna mesta,javna sfera, digitalni državljani, participatorno komuniciranje, družbeni mediji
* * * Keywords: fascism, neo-fascism, fascist practices, neoliberalism, capitalism, post-democracy. * * *
Cloakroom Communities and Cyberspace: Towards a Concept of “Pseudo-Environmental” Niches
In the advent of the internet one can recognize a familiar pattern. New technologies are regarded either as potential saviors or, in a more dystopian view, as something that will only worsen social conditions. This paper rejects these technological-determinist ic views as inadequate and analyzes broader social transformations in post-Fordist capitalism, that influence the stability of relations and communities. In the author's view the so called virtual community does not exist, but – similarly as pessimistic outcries to return to traditional community - functions as a mystification of social antagonisms, inherent to capitalism. The reanimation of democratic life and the quest for safety and liberty of an individual
through community can be a dangerous substitute for political action.
Key words: cloakroom communities, imagined communities, identity, pseudo-environment, worldliness, myth, post-Fordism, Zygmunt Bauman, Paolo Virno.
Povzetek:
Z nastankom interneta se je ponovil že znani vzorec, po katerem nove tehnologije bodisi prinašajo številne možnosti reševanja družbenih tegob bodisi delujejo na te razmere skrajno negativno. Prispevek zavrne te tehnološko-determinističn e pristope kot neustrezne ter prouči širše družbene spremembe v postfordističnem kapitalizmu, ki vplivajo na stabilnost odnosov in trdnost skupnosti. Tako imenovana virtualna skupnost po mnenju avtorja ne obstaja, ampak, podobno kot pesimističen poziv po vrnitvi k tradicionalni skupnosti, služi kot mistifikacija za (kapitalizmu inherentne) družbene antagonizme. Oživljanje demokratičnega življenja ter iskanje rešitev za varnost in svobodo posameznika skozi skupnost je nevaren substitut za politično delovanje.
Ključne besede: garderobne skupnosti, zamišljene skupnosti, identiteta, psevdookolja, svetnost, mit, postfordizem, Zygmunt Bauman, Paolo Virno""
Abstract
The purpose of this text is to make a contribution to understanding the idea of the common in the existing historical framework. The author points out the wide range of meanings that must be taken into account when one attempts to conceptualise the common, or at least when one wishes to achieve a more or less comprehensive understanding of it. Specifically, this concept must not be understood only in association with common resources, fields or goods, that is, in the sense of that which is most commonly understood as common ownership or common »property«. The common is first and foremost a concept which cannot be conceived without the social relations that constitute an inseparable part of it. The narrow or limited approach mentioned above, which is particularly characteristic of a political economy perspective on the common, may of course provide one of the keys to understanding the diversity of the common and the techniques used to exploit it in the age of bio-linguistic capitalism; however, an exclusive focus on this meaning reduces the complexity of both the concept itself and the society in which it emerges, and thus presents a risk of naturalising certain parts of the social. The first part of the text is therefore dedicated to a clarification of the wide range of faces and approaches through which it is possible to observe the common; only in the second part is this followed by a tentative attempt at a political-economic typologisation of the common. In this part, two mostly »intangible« forms of the common which have become »victims« of new processes of enclosure and privatisation are highlighted. In both cases information itself, which is characterised by a non-rival logic and low subtractivity, is privatised, creating new monopolies on knowledge which directly impact the functioning of society as a whole. These processes are enabled through extra-economic interventions, in particular through the enforcement of intellectual property, which is expanding on the global level through new rigid ownership systems (such as the TRIPS system) and enabling owners to restrict access and thereby potentially accumulate »profit which is becoming rent«. The author approaches the common from the radical position of alternative modernity and posits the urgency of absolute democracy in the administration, establishment and understanding of the common.
Povzetek
Namen članka je prispevati k razumevanju ideje o skupnem v obstoječih zgodovinskih okvirih. Avtor opozarja na množico pomenov, ki jih je treba upoštevati, ko poskušamo poskušamo konceptualizirati skupno, vsaj če ga hočemo razumeti kar se le da celovito. Tega koncepta namreč nikakor ne smemo dojemati le v povezavi s skupnimi viri, področji ali dobrinami, torej v pomenu tega, kar se najpogosteje dojema kot skupna posest ali skupna »lastnina«. Skupno je namreč predvsem koncept, ki ga je nemogoče misliti brez družbenih odnosov, ki so njegov neizogibni del. Omenjeni ožji oziroma zamejeni pristop, ki je značilen predvsem za politično-ekonomski pogled na skupno, je sicer lahko eden izmed ključev za razumevanje raznolikosti skupnega in s kakšnimi tehnikami se v epohi biolingvističnega kapitalizma eksploatira, vendar bi ekskluzivno osredinjanje le na ta pomen reduciralo kompleksnost tako samega koncepta kot tudi družbe, v kateri nastaja, s čimer bi lahko tvegali naturalizacijo nekaterih delov družbenega. Zato je prvi del članka namenjen razjasnitvi množice obrazov in pristopov, iz katerih je mogoče opazovati skupno, čemur šele v drugem delu in s pridržki sledi poizkus politično-ekonomske tipologizacije skupnega ...
V Časopis za kritiko znanosti, številka 244, letnik XXXVIII (2011), str.: 23-47."
This article was published in the journal Družboslovne razprave, številka 70, letnik XXVIII, str. 51-70, september 2012.
Weblink: http://druzboslovnerazprave.org/clanek/2012/70/3/
ENGLISH:
Title: The biases of the internet and the (un)power of web audiences.
Abstract:
The main purpose of this article is to lay out the main limitations when it comes to the »emancipatory« potentials of the Internet, and to show certain biases of this technology in regards to the audiences and individual agency online. The text first conceptualizes cyberspace as an assemblage of material infrastructure, public representations and everyday practices, which enables to differentiate key levels through which relations between different actors on the Web are formed. After that, authors provide a critique of technological determinism by focusing on their own model of material, incorporated, and structural biases that constrain the power of audiences and possible emancipatory potentials that could develop online. While material biases derive from the technical infrastructure of the web that is based in network structure and web links, embedded biases are referred to digital competencies, homogenization of choice, and mechanisms of authority. When it comes to structural biases a crucial point is assigned to commodification, privatization, and concentration, which are transmitted both on the technical infrastructure as well as on content and applications. Authors conclude with consideration of possible consequences of such findings for understanding of complicated relations when it comes to studying audiences on the Web.
EXTENDED SUMMARY:
The present article lays out main limitations of the “emancipatory” potentials of the Internet as a medium, which was throughout its history presented in mostly utopian terms. It was commonly considered as a medium that will bring positive social and political change that will enable equality between users, non-hierarchical relations and consequently also new potentials for fully developed democracy. Article demonstrates certain biases of this new technology in regards to the audiences and individual agency on the Net, by providing a critique of the before mentioned simplistic notions of its possible use and development in a wider social context. These biases are either connected to the material limitations and are therefore dictated by the technical biases of technology as such, or reflect wider socio-structural limitations that are mirrored through the Net. The Internet, being a part of wider social relations, much like other technologies either enables or constrains audiences and their autonomy.
On the basis of these preliminary presuppositions, authors first conceptualize cyberspace as an assemblage of material infrastructure, public representations and everyday practices, which enables them to analytically differentiate key levels through which relations between different actors are constituted. After this initial clarification, authors provide a critique of technological determinism, which presents technological changes as independent, neutral and autonomous from society. This approach is connected to the “ideology of technology”, which can be seen as providing an influential interpretations of technological and social changes, especially of its supposedly positive outcomes (which seem necessary and inevitable in this interpretation). As an alternative, authors present Innis’s theory of the biases of communication, which was often accused of technological determinism. They demonstrate that a closer interpretation of this theory can offer a much more nuanced and complex picture of the role technology plays in society. This offers a solid ground for authors to focus on their own model of material, embedded and structural biases of the Internet that constrain and limit the power of audiences on the Internet and with it also possible emancipatory potentials that could develop through the use of this new technology.
Firstly, material biases develop from the technical infrastructure of the Net that is based in network structure and web links. This bias shows a tendency towards the politics of winners-take-all (e.g. the concept of “Googlearchy”), while autonomy of audiences can also be limited through choices of architecture or design of specific medium or technology (and may seem self-evident or even natural when they are completely implemented). Secondly, embedded biases are connected to digital competencies, homogenization of choice, and mechanisms of authority. These biases can change with use and practice of audiences, but nevertheless seriously constrain activities of individual users. They are connected to the wider social relations, for example to the social norms, regulation, hierarchies or social inequalities. A crucial part when it comes to the third type of biases, the structural ones, is assigned to commodification, privatization, and concentration on (and of) the Internet. These processes are transmitted both on the technical infrastructure of the networks (privatization) as well as on the content and applications running on this material basis. The Internet is a part of capitalist societies, which produce serious inequalities, while there is also a constant tendency toward monopolization. These processes reinstate new (old) hierarchies and (re)produce concentration of power both through the Net and on it.
Authors claim that all these biases and their different levels of influence seriously impede possibilities for possible autonomy of audiences and users when it comes to their activities and choices on the Internet. They note that particular biases are usually at the same time in complex reciprocal relation with one another and can either enhance or even contradict each other. While a certain bias of new technology can provide new means of autonomy (e.g. reduction of exclusivity when it comes to the production of content), others can seriously impede such possibilities (e.g. new monopolies and economic elites, concentration of the web-traffic, or privatization of technological infrastructure and large parts of the Web). It is therefore possible to see several contradictions and antagonisms at work both within the Internet and within society, which fully normalized this new technology. Authors conclude their article with a consideration of possible consequences of these findings for understanding of complicated relations when it comes to studying audiences on the Web, by pointing at different possibilities of political empowerment.
Keywords: biases and cyberspace, web-audiences, the web and the Internet, inequality and hierarchies, concentration of power
Povzetek
Namen prispevka je pokazati na omejitve »emancipatornih« potencialov interneta kot medija in opozoriti na svojstvene pristranosti, ki zmanjšujejo avtonomijo pri delovanju ter izbirah posameznikov na spletu. Avtorja najprej konceptualizirata kibernetski prostor kot skupek materialne infrastrukture, javnih reprezentacij in vsakodnevnih praks, kar jima omogoči, da analitično razmejita ključne ravni, prek katerih se vzpostavljajo razmerja med spletnimi akterji. V nadaljevanju prek kritike tehnološkega determinizma predstavita lasten model materialnih, vgrajenih in strukturnih pristranosti. Medtem ko materialne pristranosti izhajajo iz same tehnične infrastrukture interneta, ki temelji v mrežni strukturi in spletnih povezavah, so vgrajene pristranosti povezane z digitalnimi veščinami, homogenizacijo izbire in mehanizmi avtoritete. Pri strukturnih pristranostih igrajo ključno vlogo komodifikacija, privatizacija in koncentracija, ki se prenašajo tako na tehnično infrastrukturo samih omrežij kot na vsebine in aplikacije, ki tečejo na omenjeni materialni platformi. Avtorja članek skleneta z razmislekom o posledicah teh ugotovitev za proučevanje spletnih občinstev.
Ključne besede: pristranosti in kibernetski prostor, občinstva, splet in internet, neenakosti, hierarhičnost, koncentracija moči
Abstract
In his analysis of current social antagonisms, the author starts from a critique of political economy and focuses on two historically and politically/theoretically important concepts, without which it would not be possible to understand the development of the capitalist system and the way it currently functions: primitive accumulation and modern private property. Newer interpretations of the process of primitive accumulation (Perelman, DeAngelis, Harvey) start from the premise that primitive accumulation is not just a historical period belonging to the past, but a necessarily present part of capital in its expansion and search for news ways out of recurring crises. This permanence of primitive accumulation, which Harvey refers to as accumulation-by-disposses sion, in which a key factor is the difference between the generation and existence of capital, helps us to understand the ever present processes of capital expansion and their often violent incorporation of various fields. Although these processes are an always-already-present characteristic of capitalism, by manifesting themselves, they have marked the past decades, when capital has attempted to resolve its own profitability crisis through financialisation and privatisation. At the same time, because the existence of the modern form of private property has appeared as an important condition for capitalist accumulation and as that element which facilitates the effective functioning, development and expansion of capitalist relations of production, at the beginning of the article, this socially constructed phenomenon of modern society, which, through a process of reductionism, makes it almost impossible to consider different forms of ownership such as common forms of property, is analysed. And these starting points provide a suitable foundation for understanding historical and current processes of the expropriation of the common and the transformation of commonly held fields into various forms of commodities which can be exchanged and sold on the market. It is the consequences of these processes for the common – both on the »practical« (i.e. expropriation) and »theoretical« levels (an ever greater inability to reflect on the common – beyond the public and the private) – that form the backdrop as well as the fundamental guiding principal of this text. In the last part, the discussed dilemmas are applied to the phenomenon of the rise of the rent, which has become crucial for understanding the functioning of postfordist capitalism and new forms of (fictitious) commodities.
V Časopis za kritiko znanosti, številka 244, letnik XXXVIII (2011), str.: 89-109.
Abstract of the volume: "In an increasing number of countries around the world, populist leaders, political parties and movements have gained prominence and influence, either by electoral successes on their own or by influencing other political parties and the national political discourse. While it is widely acknowledged that the media and the role of communication more broadly are key to understanding the rise and success of populist leaders, parties and movements, there is however very little research on populist political communication, at least in the English-speaking research literature."
Abstract: The commodity-form played an important, if often overlooked, role in the studies of capitalism. Processes of transforming literally anything into a privatized form of (fictitious) commodity produced for market exchange are of fundamental importance for the rise and reproduction of capitalism. At the same time, the commodity, as the “cell-form of capitalism”, has played a crucial role throughout Marx’s oeuvre. This chapter aims to contribute to a large body of academic work dealing with commodification and commodity-form by directing focus on the field of communication in the widest sense of this word. Commodity-form and commodification are analysed from a theoretical, conceptual and historical point of view. Main consequences for society and social relations that emanate from the global universalisation of the commodity-form are emphasized. In the conceptual and theoretic part this chapter analyses how the commodity-form was analysed by Marx throughout his oeuvre, how this corresponds to the wider constitution of capitalist society, and how critical authors analysed these processes. It is claimed there is now an enduring global commodification of everything, including culture, creativity, information, and diverging types of communication; these social categories are becoming fundamental in what could also be called capitalist informational societies. Historical dialectical approach is used in the historical part of the chapter to make sense of this on-going contradictory social transformation, which manifests itself simultaneously as continuity of capitalist social relations and discontinuity of the means of production (because of the strengthened influence of information in the present historical epoch). Commodification of communication and information is analysed in deeply historical manner by looking at how these resources have been subjugated to capitalist market relations since the capitalist economic system first emerged several centuries ago. It is claimed, however, that especially political incentives and interventions led to the increasing social, economic and political significance of the information and communication systems and resources we have been witnessing in the last few decades. A seeping commodification as a historically novel type of commodification, which trickles throughout society, is conceptualized in the final part of the chapter. This is done by referring to the long historical transformations and to two strands of thought that offer several converging points between them: a) to critical communication studies, more specifically to political economy of communication (through a reappraisal of the “blind spot debate” initiated by Dallas W. Smythe and his audience commodity thesis); and b) to some neo-Marxist approaches, especially to the findings of the authors basing their research in the autonomist (post-operaist) movement (that defined the present transformations through concepts such as communicative, bio-linguistic capitalism, and social factory). The concept of a seeping commodification indicates we are witnessing a qualitative transformation in the commodification processes that is, in part, owed to an overwhelming capitalist enclosure of the wider communicative field, which accompanied its increased economic importance.
Keywords: Commodity-form, Commodification, Abstraction, Political economy of communication, Critique of political economy, Social factory, Audience commodity, The Internet, Communication capitalism, Capitalism, Critical communication studies, Information Society, Enclosures, Intellectual Property Rights, Critical Media and Communications History.
Özet: Meta-biçimi. çoğu zaman göz ardı edilse de. kapitalizm üzerine çalışmalarda önemli bir rol oynadı. Hemen her şeyin eksiksiz bir biçimde dolaşım sürecinde mübadele edilen özelleşmiş (hayali) bir meta biçimine dönüştürme süreçleri, kapitalizmin doğuşu ve devamı açısından temel önemdedir. "Kapitalizmin hücre-biçimi" olarak meta, aynı zamanda Marx'ın tüm çalışmalarında, başından sonuna kadar can alıcı bir rol oynamıştır. Bu çalışmanın asıl amacı. meta-biçimin Marx'ın çalışmalarında (gerek genel argümanının bir parçası olarak, gerekse de tarihsel değişimler bağlamında) nasıl geliştirildiğini ve eleştirel kuramın bazı temel çalışmalarında nasıl rol oynadığını göstermektir. Bundan başka, çalışmanın diğer bir amacı, metaya eleştirel iletişim çalışmalarında nasıl yaklaşıldığını ve bunun iletişimin ekonomi politiği içinde nasıl çözümlendiğini ortaya koymaktır. Bu, özellikle. Dallas W. Smythe tarafından başlatılan "kör nokta tartışması'Yıın ve bu tartışma içinde gündeme gelen izleyici-ınetası tezinin yeniden ele alınması yoluyla yapılmaktadır. Dolaylı da olsa bugüne kadar devam eden bu uzun-soluklu tartışma, gerek Marksizm'i temel alan eleştirel iletişim çalışmaları açısından gerekse de toplumun farklı alanlarında devam etmekte olan metalaştırma sürecinin ve bunun çağdaş topluma sürekli nüfuz edişinin ciddi bir çözümlemesiyle bağlantılı düşünce ve pratikler açısından son derece değerli bir kaynaktır. Son bölümde, elde edilen bulgular bazı son dönem neo-Marksist yaklaşımlarla, özellikle de otonomisi (post-operaist) hareketten gelen yazarların bulgularıyla ilişkilendirilmektedir. Bu düşünsel akım içindeki kavrayışlar. Snıythe'nin yaklaşımıyla olan yakınsamanın olanaklarını sunmakla birlikte, devam etmekte olan metalaştırma süreçlerinin anlaşılmasını da sağlayabilir.
Anahtar kavramlar: meta-biçimi, metalaştırma. soyutlama, iletişimin ekonomi politiği, ekonomi politiğin eleştirisi, toplumsal fabrika, izleyici metası, internet, iletişimsel kapitalizm, kapitalizm, eleştirel iletişim çalışmaları.
The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available through the publisher, more information on the book: http://www.rodopi.nl/s... (see also: http://www.amazon.com/...
Prodnik, Jernej. 2012. Post-Fordist Communities and Cyberspace: A Critical Approach. In Breslow, Harris and Aris Mousoutzanis (eds.), Cybercultures: Mediations of Community, Culture, Politics, pp. 75-100. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi B.V.
Abstract
This chapter approaches from a critical perspective questions regarding so-called ‘virtual communities.’ Because the origins of every community arise from language and communication it is impossible to distinguish between ‘genuine,’ communities, and imaginary, or even ‘fake,’ communities. It is, however, possible to discern both their (changing) stability and solidity within specific social conditions and the ways in which these communities are imagined. This social-constructivist approach is further developed by proposing a three-fold construction of community, while simultaneously demonstrating the falsehood of the ‘virtual’ versus ‘real’ dichotomy. Throughout the chapter, determinist paradigms are questioned and demystified by demonstrating how both optimistic and pessimistic technologistic currents fail to acknowledge wider structural changes in capitalism, and attempt to depoliticise these developments by providing escapist or unitary solutions to social antagonisms. Because technology is neither autonomous nor neutral, and always develops within a complex conjuncture of power relationships, there is a need to look beyond views that solely blame technology for social transformations. In the time of ‘liquid modernity’ and post-Fordist capitalism, temporary cloakroom communities have become a rule, and this chapter aims at revising our understanding of their role in society.
*see RoMEO: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeoinfo.html
Objavljeno v reviji Fotografija, št. 69/70, str. 28-33, 2016.
This dissertation helps expanding the critical theoretical power of such approach, one that this type of research tradition has, historically spoken, possessed since the very beginning. Apart from that I also tried to demonstrate the extent of explanatory powers that this approach has regarding the understanding of our society in the current time period. Since there have been very few articles dealing with scientific argumentation of political economy of communication published in the Slovenian research area - at least at the theoretical level - this dissertation can be regarded as a starting point for a debate about the research role of this communication approach and also as an initiative (and an incentive) for consolidating the research area in the future.
Within the scope of deep historical transformations this dissertation emphasizes the commodification, an essential process inherent to capitalism. It is also a key process analyzed by political-economic approach in communication research. In my historical analysis of these processes I have not only discussed in general the expansion of commodification throughout our society but I also focused on the problems of the commodification of communication sphere: the long revolution of integrating areas of culture, information, media and communication into the frames of capitalist accumulation and production. Those are the topics, on which I have directly or indirectly focused throughout the dissertation.
Consistently with the main goal of this assignment (the theoretical argumentation of political economy of communication) I have set three general research questions for my research. First: I wanted to know what is the role and the significance of the political economy of communication for understanding of the society and the expansion of the commodification in the current social era and the current stage of capitalism. Second: How to understand, expand and strengthen the explanatory powers of this research approach within the current historical context. Third: What were the structural transformations that capitalism went through at the material level and how did those shifts consolidate the importance of the critical approach to political economy of communication.
The research foundations of this dissertation lie in the historical insight that offers support at all levels of the analysis: Everything from understanding the long-term changes in social structures to historical placement and contextualization of key social processes which help preserve and expand certain social formations and the historical discussion of the discipline and its authors, who constitute this research approach.
A large portion of this dissertation is reserved for a detailed analysis of the research starting points and presumptions that are often merely implicated in one’s research (although they present a constant part of every research analysis). At the level of metatheory I have, on the one hand, used the approach of critical realism, and on the other hand materialism, with various interpretations of Marxist philosophy serving as the basis. At the social ontology level I presumed that a man is essentially a political animal due to his generic faculty of language, while communication along with labor (co-)creates the social reality. With the materialistic perception of this presumption I tried to emphasize how much the actual means of communication and the communication sphere itself depend on the broader social context, the power relations and the general social relations of production. Means of communication are in concrete historical circumstances always closely related to the social totality in which they have developed.
My ontological comprehension of society is relational: It is the people who preserve and transform the society, while societies are products of human activity. Yet different societies and the changes within them are always based on pre-existing societies and social relations (material continuity). At the level of loose "method" I was proceeding from dialectical reasoning that includes abstraction and the need for a deep historical perspective. I have defined open dialectics as an open, dynamic approach to studying social processes and their associated changes and also contradictions within the society. This approach is also very historical in its nature. At the axiology level my approach can be defined as critical towards the existing social order. Paradigmatically, I was proceeding from critical theory of society, especially from various interpretations of (neo)marxism, while trying to find mutual cross-sections and common points between different theoretical approaches and traditions. These common points enable the foundation for mutual criticism of the existing social relations and help explain the studied subject matter more precisely.
These basic presumptions offer a basis for critical analyses of the society, among them the criticism of processes of commodification, which are not only essential for the functioning of capitalism but also for its expansion. It is one of the preliminary conditions for preserving this political-economic order, since without growth the capitalist system is essentially faced with crisis. Therefore it is not unusual that during the twentieth century those processes have expanded notably through the communication sphere, which has become extremely important in the current stage of capitalist development. Although these tendencies within capitalism have long been present, namely for commodification of communications, information and the whole cultural sphere, which the capital wanted to subdue to its logics, those processes became especially noticeable during the last few decades. It should also be noted that commodification never happens without resistance, which is why those processes are often based on direct violence and political interventions (such as political construction of private property or primitive accumulation). This also applies to transforming information, culture and communication into a special type of commodity, a process for which political institutionalization of intellectual property was of fundamental importance. General trading agreements at the transnational levels enabled a consolidation of free markets in this area and also its almost complete commodification, together with the possibility for their privatization. The reasons why the so-called "information society" as well as new information and communication technologies have so radically expanded in the last decades should be sought for in political interventions, especially when considering the extremely high (public) financial investments into those areas. An important figure for enabling accumulation of capital in this new "information" area was also the (American) government, not only the capital itself.
One of the findings of this dissertation is that capital in the current time period is not colonizing merely one single thing, sphere or area. On the contrary, there is almost no process or activity left that cannot be subject to commodification and therefore be susceptible to processes of capitalist exchange of commodities (these processes presuppose a real abstraction, equivalence among unequal things and calculated rationalization). This dissertation contributes to the understanding of these social processes by introducing the concept seeping commodification. The term itself suggests that the capital colonization of elements of society and human lives - which are in one way or another linked to communication that dominates every aspect of our lives - brought on a significant qualitative leap in the expansion of commodification. The characteristics of communication, which cannot be completely limited and often knows no usual boundaries or "physical" limitations, enable a potential seeping of commodification into every pore of society and human lives. This is mostly reflected by the commodification of various types of information and the access to them.
These topics are closely related to political economy of communication that enables an explanation of structural limitations which derive into society from the functional principles of the capitalist market. The primary intention of political economy is exactly to analyze the material level and the relations which are a part of it: The ownership structures and production and the relations of production, which act as solid frameworks within which every individual media, information and cultural capitalist industry has to function (as well as all the actors that function within those industries). This approach helps to identify which types of pressure affect the production of media messages already at this basic level and by doing so (perhaps even unintentionally and completely indirectly) also affect the actual contents that are being produced. The approach also answers the questions regarding why and who produces and distributes these contents so effectively that they exert the biggest social influence; what is the correlation between the means of communication and the general means of production within capitalism; how the communication power is distributed within the society and...
Abstract
Debates about the so-called ‘virtual’ communities most of the time revolvearound questions of disintegration, spread of cynicism, in-authenticity, andthe likes. Authors that base their theories primarily on the new technologiesoften tend to point at the social isolation of the individual (brought by technology) which presumably leads towards increase in individualisationand has long-term devastating influences on what is traditionally thought of as community. Such outlooks are overlooking other aspects of social life andshould be subject to serious criticism about technological determinism. Oneof the main purposes of this paper is to present a wider outlook on the newtechnologies through changes in production and contemporary capitalism. Itis urgent to ask ourselves whether the individualised instrumentalnetworking, which mostly forms fragile communities and offers severaloptional and changeable identities, is perhaps a symptom of other vast socialchanges in post-Fordist capitalism. Can this be seen only as a radicalizationin the development of these processes? In the second part a concept of pseudo-environmental niche is proposed, which could be useful forunderstanding contemporary changes and reactionary communitarianresponses that are proposing a return to ‘genuine’ communities. This is donethrough theorisation of ‘worldliness’ as lately conceived by Paolo Virno. Thisis followed by deconstruction of mythological aspects of community life anda proposition to revise our understanding of community. The question of community is, in the author’s view, an eminent question of politics
Also available via: http://www.livroslabcom.ubi.pt/pdfs/20111222-public_sphere_reconsidered_ebook.pdf
Abstract
The author of this text questions conceptualizations of the public sphere that take its existence for granted, without reflecting what in fact constitutes this public discursive field (or public “infrastructure”). It is argued that when considering the idea of the public sphere, it is public(s) that should first and foremost play the crucial role in determining how we understand and characterize it and how it should develop in practice. This epistemological presumption raises an important prerequisite for all more comprehensive debates on the public sphere, as it is the emergence (or eclipse) of public(s) that constitutes fully-working, active, and democratic public sphere. Even though public(s) have largely been ignored in the last two decades this concept has again been gaining in prominence (e.g. Angus, 2001; Gilman-Opalsky, 2008; Hind, 2010), especially with social transformations and bottom-up social developments. This reinvigoration of critical-theoretic discourse was also partially prompted by the new media technologies which opened up possibilities for transnational connections that can possibly influence wider society. Earliest normative approaches regarding the question of the public (and publics) are followed up in this paper, concentrating especially on John Dewey’s (1927/1989) seminal work “The Public and its Problems” and C. Wright Mills's (1956/2000) “The Power Elite”. This presents a suitable basis to connect them to later developments in theorizing this important concept and for analyzingcounterpublics, which were perhaps most notably described by Nancy Fraser (1991), but later-on furthermore developed by several other authors. Author’s reconsideration of the public sphere through focus on publics and counterpublics is theoretically based in the project of alternative modernity (Negri and Hardt, 2009), through which post-modernistic approaches can be rejected, but which also provides foundation through which this concept can be detached from some of the questionable influences of modernistic line of thought. It is claimed that changes and developments in the material basis of society should not be neglected when approaching these issues. This is achieved through contextualization of the Imperial governance and post-Fordist capitalism.
This review was published in journal tripleC - Cognition, Communication, Co-operation, Vol 10, No 2 (2012), pp. 771-774. This text is also available through the following link on the tripleC website: http://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/452/0
Reflection was published in journal tripleC - Cognition, Communication, Co-operation, Vol 10, No 1 (2012), pp. 92-99. This text is also available through the following link: http://triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/342"