Lecture given by Prof. Colombo during

1. Fausto Colombo
OssCom - Catholic University of Milan - Italy
MeRIS | Urbino 13-15 Settembre 2011
Metodologia di Ricerca Online e Internet Studies
1

2. The rise of the optimistic (and ideological)
approaches to web 2.0
 Economic theory (new economy before the
2000; digital capitalism after the 2000; theory
of the end of scarcity; end of phisical work;
rise of digital workers …): Kelly 1995, 1999,
Anderson 2009, Tapscott and Williams 2006,
Shirky 2010
 Psichological (or philosophic) theory: new
cognitive skills (Turkle 1995; 1999); new (non
alphabetic) mankind: Lévy 1994, Serres 2009
2

3.  Political
theory (rise of democracy in web
2.0, netizens… wikicracy…)
 Sociological theory (new communities;
tribal society…): Rheingold 1991, 1993,
2002
 Semiotic
theory (active, participating
audiences…)
3

4.  Economic theory  Capitalistic characteristics
of digital capitalism;
concentrations,
enclosures: Lovink 2007,
Formenti 2011
 Addictions; narcissism;
 Psichological (or
crisis of traditional ways of
philosophic)
in depth thinking: Lanier
theory 2010, Turkle 2009, 2011,
Carr 2010
4

5.  Rise of centripetal control:
 Political theory Barabasi 2002; crisis of
democracies: Gladwell
2010
 Sociological theory  Individualism or mass
(new communities; individualism: Castells
tribal society…) (2009)
 Semiotic theory  Parallel flows of user
communication activities
(see later)
5

6.  Rediscovering classics: Marx, Lacan, Althusser,
Gramsci, Foucault
 Usefullness of Foucault: genealogy as a tool for
understanding the constitution of individuals in the
modern society
 Weakness of Foucault: impossibility to translate his
thinking in revolutionary (or at least political) action
(Formenti)
6

7. 7

8.  Foucault as reference for the studies on digital
interactive media and power, from Lyon to
Andreevic
 Foucault’s point of view on power enables us to
look the distribution of social power in a complex
and problematic way: not only its vertical form,
but also a kind of horizontal relation between
individuals.
8

9. In some of his works (1973-1975), Foucault
distinguishes between two different forms of
power:
• Sovereignity: pre-modern power, based on the
- king’s (intermittant) visibility,
- citizen’s invisibility (with the exception of the
intervention of the power, like public executions)
• Discipline. Modern power, based on
- continuous surveillance
- citizens visibility.
9

10. A typical example of
the power of
discipline: the
Panopticon, the
prison planned by
Jeremy Bentham,
The convicts live in
cells with only one
transparent wall.
They can be
watched by prison
guards, or any
citizen who decides
to observe them.
10

11. For Foucault the modern power needs three
basic elements:
 Subjects: (institutions like school, army,
asylums; but also citizens, like in Panopticon)
 Tools: writing, which enables the system
 on the one hand to settle the conditions of the
social life,
 on the other hand to memorize the citizens’
behaviours
 Objects:
the citizen’s “soul” (standardization
of behaviour, thinking, knowledge…)
11

12.  The
concept of “dispositif” (french word, in
english translated as “apparatus”): it’s a
synthesis of technological and social
systems, able to work in automatic (and
unnoticed) way as regulator and controller.
 Thereason-why of the consensus is the idea
of safety in a (potentially) unsafe society.
12

13. In fact – according with Andreevic - our behaviour
with digital interactive media is completely under
observation. Two are the main goals:
 the
political one (aimed to repression or social
control)
 thecommercial one, typical of the the great web 2.0
companies that use the informations on the users,
customers and surfers as a commodity (knowledge
technologies about privacy are like the writing in
d.i.m.)
13

14. In a Foucaultian perspective, the asset of digital power needs
three basic elements:
 Subjects: great economical companies using big set of
users data (i.e. Google)
 Tools: set of hardware and software devices for treatment
of personal data, which enables the apparatus
 on the one hand to create profiles of users
 on the other hand to conditioning their digital and
personal behaviours: see bank, search engines,
commercial or cognitive companies…
 Objects: the citizen’s digital “soul” (produced contents,
responses to companies contents or services,
communication activities…) 14

15. The reasons-why of the consensus are:
 (communicative) richness in a proletarizing society
 free consumption as a form of freedom
 sociability in an unfriendly society
15

16.  Every single act of the receiver/user can be seen/
read by the ”apparatus” (transparency)
 the communication flow is practically continuous
(more the user is always on, more her/his life is
traceable by the system, or by other users)
 the trust is replaced by an implicit acceptance,
typical of the relationship with the apparatus
16

17. Traditional media: Digital interactive media:
 the flow of communication  users use the media as a
goes from the apparatus to resource for horizontal
recipients, that can communication, but they
interpret/ domesticate the are in fact generating a flow
message/device of information towards the
apparatus
 trust (credibility or  users assign to the
reliability) is part of the apparatus the value of
relation of the recipient tools. In these instruments,
with the message and the trust is of automatic type
publisher/editor/author and poorly verified
.
17

18. • Use tools • Receive/read
texts
Receiver
Users
s
Commodi
Authors ties
• Communicate • Send information
to/with others
on theirselves to
the apparatus18

19.  A foucaultian perspective enables us to understand the
characteristic power structure of the digital communication in
the web 2.0
 The peculiar form of the digital apparatus is able to explain
the ambiguous role of the activity of the user in digital media
 In a foucaultian perspective the form of power doesn’t
explain only the traditional vertical form of the power, but
also the more radical power implicated in many forms of
horizontal communications (see the concept of
“interveillance”: Andreevic, Jansson)
19

20. http://foucaultblog.wordpress.com/
2007/08/07/facebook-is-the-new-
panopticon/
20

21. Critical analysis of Google:
- Rank Egemony, Power law (Shirky 2003)
- Dialectic between centrifugal and centripetal forces
(Introna and Nissenbaum 2000, Miconi 2011)
- Googlearchy (Hindman and alii 2009)
- Customization (or googlelization) of results
- Stock and (ab)use of users personal data
21

22. “When I use a word,”
Humpty Dumpty said, in a
rather a scornful tone, “it
means just what I choose
it to mean—neither more
nor less.”
“The question is,” said
Alice, “whether you can
make words mean so
many different things.”
“The question is,” said
Humpty Dumpty, “which is
to be master that’s all.”
(Lewis Carroll, Alice through
the looking glass)
22

23. “When I use your personal
data, Google said, in a
rather a scornful tone, “I
use them in the way I
decide — neither more
nor less.”
“The question is,” said
Alice, “whether you can
use informations ‘bout
my self in so many
different ways.”
“The question is,” said
Google, “which is to be
master that’s all.”
(Carroll-Foucault-Colombo,
Alice through the looking
Google)
23