A response to Communication, Power and Counter -power in the Network Society by Manuel Castells
S Spade (2007-09-16)
Castells begins his introductory section by stating that information is “the fundamental source of power and counter- power” in a battle “over the minds of the people.” Because this language sounds similar to that employed by people who embrace Marxist theory, I concluded in the first paragraph that Castells is examining changing media from a Marxist perspective: as a possible frame for revolution.
He does not see the media as holders of power, but as creators of the space in which power is decided. Although the medium impacts the type and effectiveness of the message, it does not determine the content or the effect of those messages. The technology simply provides the field upon which the battle for minds is fought.
He goes on to hypothesize that a number of media trends are changing the relationship between those who hold power and those who contest and resist power. Among them is the emergence of a new form of communication made possible by the new technologies. This is a horizontal network of communication, by which I assume he means that people communicate on an equal basis. He calls it “mass self-communication,” which sounds a little schizophrenic but also manages to create an interesting visual image: many lonely blog writers, simultaneously tapping out polemics that no one will read.
Castells, who sites a survey the Pew Internet and American Life Project, points out that 52 percent of bloggers “blog for themselves” and concedes that this type of blogging is more a form of “electronic autism” than communication. Regardless of the sender’s intentions the message is out there – globally -- and can be picked up and interpreted by others. The horizontal nature of this medium makes it an excellent platform for messages from those who chose to rebel and challenge the power structure – a platform that hasn’t existed previously. He lists several social movements using new media for this purpose. Some may also be developing new tools; a practice called Google Bombing, for instance, has been used to link George Bush’s biography with the search term, “miserable failure.”
However, the bloggers are competing with a new element: traditional news agencies are invading the web, offering an electronic form of vertical communication to compete with the horizontal. The news agencies may have ringers on their side, Castells contends: owners of telecommunication networks who are positioning themselves to control access in new media and who will give prime consideration to business partners.
Social revolution could also be curtailed by recent government actions, including surveillance of the internet by the US government, prosecutions of internet users by the Chinese government and the purchasing of network infrastructure by other power brokers.
I’ve concluded from Castells’ examination that although a new medium offers the potential for a new type of social struggle, it does not guarantee outcome.
