‘In the earliest versions of effects research the effects of the media on the bare individuals of mass society were held to be fairly direct and unmediated… the essential model here is of the media as a narcotic where messages are injected into the mass audience as if from a hypodermic syringe. The audience in turn responds to this stimulus in a fairly direct manner.’ (Abercrombie and Longhurst, 1998, p. 5) When critics speak of ‘The Media’ or ‘The Network Society’ in deterministic terms, for example, suggesting that the media or the network society injects capitalist or neoliberal values into the ‘masses,’ it is precisely this simplistic model of media effects that is being invoked. Unfortunately, things are a great deal more complex, and users are not merely ‘consumers,’ nor are messages appropriated in straightforward ways. While it may be true that platforms for networked conversations are often owned by corporations, for example, Facebook or Twitter, this fact does not by necessity mean that the only way to understand peer to peer relations within these platforms is as commodified relations. Nor does it obviate the diversity of desires and agencies of users as individuals and collectives. Marginalised groups facing state censorship in various locales may, for instance, use such platforms to their advantage, to achieve goals diverging from those of governments, sometimes in the face of unsympathetic corporate policies. Users may also, for example, circulate or share copyrighted material through such platforms, to the disadvantage of media corporations with stakes in the circulated material.  Speaking in vague and general terms such as ‘The Network Society,’ is also problematic because in one fell swoop, it obliterates the differences between a multitude of networks made possible by the ‘Internet’ (network of networks). While it is clear that there are a handful of privately owned networks such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., there are also amorphous networks such as ‘Anonymous,’ ‘pirate’ networks that oppose the very notion of property ownership, not to mention a variety of groups operating on the so-called ‘dark net,’ whose motivations are not necessarily driven by profit or capital accumulation. One wonders what service to thought is rendered by the invocation of reified generalities like ‘The Media’ or ‘The Network Society’? 

‘In the earliest versions of effects research the effects of the media on the bare individuals of mass society were held to be fairly direct and unmediated… the essential model here is of the media as a narcotic where messages are injected into the mass audience as if from a hypodermic syringe. The audience in turn responds to this stimulus in a fairly direct manner.’ (Abercrombie and Longhurst, 1998, p. 5)

When critics speak of ‘The Media’ or ‘The Network Society’ in deterministic terms, for example, suggesting that the media or the network society injects capitalist or neoliberal values into the ‘masses,’ it is precisely this simplistic model of media effects that is being invoked. Unfortunately, things are a great deal more complex, and users are not merely ‘consumers,’ nor are messages appropriated in straightforward ways. While it may be true that platforms for networked conversations are often owned by corporations, for example, Facebook or Twitter, this fact does not by necessity mean that the only way to understand peer to peer relations within these platforms is as commodified relations. Nor does it obviate the diversity of desires and agencies of users as individuals and collectives. Marginalised groups facing state censorship in various locales may, for instance, use such platforms to their advantage, to achieve goals diverging from those of governments, sometimes in the face of unsympathetic corporate policies. Users may also, for example, circulate or share copyrighted material through such platforms, to the disadvantage of media corporations with stakes in the circulated material. 

Speaking in vague and general terms such as ‘The Network Society,’ is also problematic because in one fell swoop, it obliterates the differences between a multitude of networks made possible by the ‘Internet’ (network of networks). While it is clear that there are a handful of privately owned networks such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., there are also amorphous networks such as ‘Anonymous,’ ‘pirate’ networks that oppose the very notion of property ownership, not to mention a variety of groups operating on the so-called ‘dark net,’ whose motivations are not necessarily driven by profit or capital accumulation. One wonders what service to thought is rendered by the invocation of reified generalities like ‘The Media’ or ‘The Network Society’? 

3 months ago  Notes (15)
  1. mattermedia posted this