Texts and Technologies

Post #1

Feenberg, A.(2009). Critical theory of communication technology: Introduction to the special section. The Information Society, 25: 1-7. doi: 10.1080/01972240802701535

Critical Theory of Communication Technology

In this introduction to the special section of The Information Society, Feenberg addresses the question of to what extent (if any) do communication technologies contribute to democracy. He begins by explaining the tendency of technologies to stabilize “after an initial period during which many differing configurations compete” after which their “social and political implications finally become clear” (p. 1). The implications of the internet, however, are still unclear despite decades of development and debates over, Feenberg argues, illustrate that the Internet is not a finished work.

Before framing his methodological approach, Feenberg provides an historical overview of the debates surrounding the Internet. Early excitement over the potential benefits of the Internet foreshadowed it as a generator of gender and social equality and promoter of democracy. Early optimism was followed by “widespread skepticism” (p. 2) in the 1990s as a detractor of democracy. According to Feenberg, criticism has focused on the digital divide, further separation of the classes, and social segregation that reinforces prejudices. Others point to the market nature that situates the Internet as little more than an online mall, while still others foreground surveillance and data tracking.

The most significant of critiques, according to Feenberg, “challenges the ability of the Internet to support real human communication and therefore human community” (p. 2). This view supposes that computer-mediated discourse lacks depth and wit, leaving people disoriented and disconnected from “reality as human beings have always known it” (p.2).

Feenberg argues that these arguments are unproductive as they dismiss possibilities for online community that contribute to increased democracy. To illustrate the potential of the Internet, Feenberg establishes its uniqueness by contrasting it with other communication technologies—primarily the TV. The main difference, he explains, is that technology is a method of broadcasting wherein only one perspective is afforded. The Internet, however, is the first technology to mediate small-group activity that allows for all group members to participate, and criticisms of the Internet’s ability to support human communication unfairly compare the trivial, everyday discussions to polished face-to-face interactions. 

To support his argument that “political usages of the Internet are instances of a much broader phenomenon” that has value for democracy (p. 4), Feenberg applies a constructivist approach by identifying different versions of the Internet’s identity (e.g., education, business, and entertainment) and choosing the one that seems most appropriate: a communicative space. The Internet, he argues “is dominated not by business but by users whose free communication prevails in cyberspace” (p. 5). According to him, communities form around spaces of “virtual social interaction” where this free communication happens. 

Feenberg concludes that these online communities are indicative of a larger democratic Internet phenomenon, the implications of which are only beginning to emerge as the technology remains in flux. These implications, he further explains, are changing the sphere of traditional politics, enabling communities of users to develop adequate representation and open discussion. The networks created in these communities challenge previous geographical boundaries  and use the Internet to coordinate their demands for representation. In this way, “agency in the technical sphere is on the rise” (p. 6) and creating a medium for democracy that overcomes the passivity of broadcasting.

Feenberg’s argument is interesting in light of our conversations regarding technological advancements that allow for mass and self-production of texts and the value we assign to those texts. While some in class have argued that the urbanity of text generated on the internet has little to offer, Feenberg counters that these are representative of discussions that would have previously occurred face to face in coffee houses and of which we have no record. The primary difference is that these discussions enable more and diverse participants to become involved in such discussions.

This article not only contributes a new perspective for our class discussions on the value of everyday texts but it also helps situate my research on online discussion boards. Considering discussion boards as a place that should promote community building and thereby contribute to democracy gives me an initial approach for my project.