I just finished reading Chapter 1 and 2 of Blog Theory, by Jodi Dean. Although I found it as a somewhat easier read; similar to the other readings from the class, I had to re-read them a few times to make sure I am following what she is saying. After reading these two chapters, I noticed some similarities to Terranova in the way that she presented her claims. As with Terranova, I noticed that Dean based a lot of her claims on the theories of others as opposed to providing material evidence. For example, from page 19-23 Dean touches upon the rise of cyberculture as a way to secure the autonomy or freedom of individuals. It is then implied on page 22, that technology—the internet in specific, which was intended to act as a tool of freedom can be used in a way that will oppress one’s freedom through communicative capitalism. Although, this is a logical argument Dean failed to provide concrete evidence as to this happening, instead moving on to the theory of Christopher Kelty; I would have liked for Dean to provide examples of this oppression.
Another thing that I had issue with while reading this book was the claim that the internet:
“[is responsible for] increases in economic inequality and consolidation of neoliberal capitalism in and through globally networked communication.”
Again, Dean failed to provide any evidence of the internet being responsible for such a thing. In fact one can argue the complete opposite and say that because of globally networked communication companies such as Apple have been able to prosper, thus providing the creation of jobs. In my opinion without globally networked communication fortune 500 companies would not exist. I am not saying that the statement is incorrect, I am sure that there are companies that have suffered but I would have to love have seen examples of such companies or industries that have went downhill through globally networked communication.
Nevertheless, there were somethings in the chapter that I completely agreed with, more specifically, the example of the relationship between books and communicative capitalism. At first I did not understand how communicative capitalism was responsible for the need to be 'the first,' but as I continued to read I began to understand how it came to be. However, I could not help but wonder if this need to be first attitude was a bad thing, correct me if I am wrong but isn't competition a good thing?
Nevertheless, there were somethings in the chapter that I completely agreed with, more specifically, the example of the relationship between books and communicative capitalism. At first I did not understand how communicative capitalism was responsible for the need to be 'the first,' but as I continued to read I began to understand how it came to be. However, I could not help but wonder if this need to be first attitude was a bad thing, correct me if I am wrong but isn't competition a good thing?
Although, I went a tad criticism crazy, I believe that Dean had some valid points but she just failed to back them up with evidence, which is important in a society where evidence is everything.
Interesting points, I agree that there could have been some more examples to back up the claim that the internet is/has accelerated inequality, however, I think the lack of examples is based more on the assumption that this new inequality this is a given, rather than that it is debatable. Regardless, I would be willing to defend the position that the internet has increased inequality: as it has. The internet facilitated the raise Neoliberalism which A. pushes the poor to the periphery, and B. privileges private enterprise. Thus wealth AND inequality have risen. The internet lets us think everything is better, when it really is creating more noise. That being said, I also think it is important to realize the dichotomy, ( somewhat ignored by Dean) that the internet is creating both wealth and inequality...
ReplyDelete-Tim Hollinger
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-02/23/content_12060942.htm
I agree with Tim and Dean with the idea that the internet has accelerated inequality. As Tim mentioned this raise of neoliberalism which pushes the poor to the periphery. Dean just was very loose on her examples through the reading. The internet isn't a commodity that everyone has. The population of poor people aren't necessarily able to access the internet as easily as other people can. That is the way that I took it...and if you can't access the internet then it is clearly accelerating inequality.
ReplyDeleteInteresting--but how does the internet do it? That is the question that I was trying to get at. The argument on the effects of the internet and global communication on neo-liberal capitalism debatable. However, Dean fails to present this debate which is one of the things I criticize her for. Although the both of you have provided some highly possible outcomes in-regards to the relationship between inequality and the internet, just like Dean you fail to provide the ethos that I was asking for.
ReplyDeleteShane--would the rise of nearly instantaneous currency and security trading be the kind of evidence that would convince you? What about the ability for capital to move rapidly from one locale to another, thereby circumventing local rules?
ReplyDeleteWhat is empirically true is that neoliberalism has emerged as new kind of intense version of capitalism over the last 30 years (as Tim points out). This version of capitalism has sought to eliminate regulations and constraints on trade, both of physical goods and financial assets. Global telecommunications have been necessary to enable the ease of movement (again of financial and other sorts of assets). (FYI--in the history of media studies, the association between forms of media and modes of production is pretty well established; the Canadian media theorist Harold Innis is widely considered one of the best on this; there is a terrific book, Networking the World, by Mattelart that shows the links between the telegraph and the imperial power of the British empire, and then satellites and telecommunications for the Cold War, and then computer networks for neoliberalism.
I would agree with you that one cannot say something like "the internet caused neoliberalism;" but no one denies the centrality of the internet for the global economy, which is capitalist, and dominated by a neoliberal approach to capitalist (as Tim rightly pointed out, the Washington Consensus).
Also, on inequality and the internet: powerlaws, powerlaws, powerlaws (I didn't mention them in this book, which really annoys me now, but which I omitted at the time because I talked about them in the first chapter of the 2009 book, Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies.