This unit delves into the contradictory, dynamic world of power in digital times. Guided once more by Freedman's (2014) "The Contradictions of Media Power," we explore power as it has transformed and been transformed by digital media technologies, platforms, policies and organizations.Much of the early commentary and theory about power in the digital media landscape subscribed to what Freedman calls the "chaos paradigm"--a perspective that highlights the messy, uncertain, and fragile state of power in contemporary times. Early projections of the impacts of information technologies like the internet often emphasized its 'revolutionary' possibilities and consequences. This line of commentary and inquiry emanated largely from two 'camps' of thinkers--those studying political power relations (see for example Brian McNair, Moises Naim and Joseph Nye) and those who might best be described as 'technophiles' (see for example Chris Anderson, Jeff Jarvis, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen). 'Techno-utopian' celebrations of digital media platforms are characterized by hyperbolic and often unsubstantiated claims about the "death/end of" you name it--"distance" (Cairncross, 1997), "the nation state" (Ohmae, 1996), "work" (Rifkin, 2000), "politics" (Carswell, 2012), "big" (Mele, 2013), "blockbuster power" (Anderson, 2009) and so on.
While this line of commentary importantly "reposition[ed] communications at the heart of power" (Freedman, 2014, p. 91), critics caution against the dangerous allure of technological determinism characteristic, asserting that while networks like the internet can facilitate collaboration, democratic participation and cultural production, digital networks must be examined within the social systems out of which they emerged and operate (see Manuel Castells' "Communication Power" for more about network power). Though power is indeed shifting in this moment, many media theorists suggest that the data does not support the claim that digital networks have decisively shifted power from the center to the periphery (decentralization) and from elites to ordinary users and creators (disintermediation) (see Castells, 2009; Freedman, 2014; McChesney, 2013). Indeed, the "digital economy, just the 'analogue' one with which it is intimately connected, is marked by the same tendencies towards concentration and consolidation, towards enclosing and protecting private property" (Freedman, 2014, p. 113) and most importantly, towards contradiction. Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple display both the problems and possibilities of democratic structures in unequal social systems.
What is however clear is that new power vocabularies are needed to better understand the new positions and forms that have emerged in this 'digital frontier'. While "ownership," "agenda setting," and "meaning making," remain important concepts in understanding the power of the media in contemporary society, web 2.0 has given rise to new and important categories such as "designing/coding," "switching" and "deciding" power (see Castells, 2009, Morozov, 2012, Rosen, 2008, 2013). Inventories of power in this new digital landscape will be inadequate if they cannot account for these phenomena. As with the mainstream media platforms that preceded them, digital media platforms are rife with contradiction. Those interested in the emergent landscapes of power in the digital era must equip themselves with the conceptual toolkits that allow them to thoughtfully explore its "creative destruction" (Schumpeter, 1994) without falling victim to the "optimist-pessimist, utopian-dystopian dichotomies that characterize our current discussion about the Internet" (Naughton, 2012, p. 294).
Want to learn more?
This TED Talk by Paddy Ashdown outlines the ways in which power is shifting and creating new dimensions to place itself in networks.
Media, Power and Democracy - Des Freedman