Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies

communication social networking

John Hartley (2012) describes the emergence of a dialogical model of communicatio
n
(2), in which everyone is a producer (3), and discusses the implications of
this model for media and Cultural Studies. His general argument is that with the
rise of online platforms that support social networking and user-generated conte
nt
production and diffusion, journalism, the public sphere, universities, the mass
media,
citizenship, archives and other institutions have become more democratic because
people have more say in producing as well as consuming (ibid., 14). These developm
ents
would be advanced by the emergence of consumer entrepreneurship
(ibid., 25), social network markets (48) and microproductivity (52). Hartley sha
res
with Grossberg the assessment that Cultural Studies is in crisis. It would have
lost
steam and adventurousness and would have gotten lost in infinitely extensible
micro-level analyses that do not pay enough attention to the macro level (ibid.,
28). Like Grossberg, Hartley ascertains that Cultural Studies has not enjoyed a
sustained dialogue with economics and has remained aloof from the turbulent
changes within economics (ibid., 35). Hartley acknowledges that Marxist Political
Economy has given attention to the economics of culture (he mentions Chomsky,
Garnham, Miller and Schiller; ibid.), but claims that this approach was too chall
enging,
knowing what was wrong in advance (46), and assumes single-cause
determinations of entire systems (55).
Hartleys version of introducing economics into Cultural Studies is called
Cultural Science 2.0 and wants to achieve this aim by using evolutionary economics
.
It stresses that value in the cultural industries today emerges dynamically
from the co-creativity of citizens and users in social networks. Hartley metapho
rically
uses the language of evolutionary systems theory, complexity theory and
self-organization theory, but fails to systematically apply concepts of this the
ory
approach (such as control parameters, critical values, fluctuations, feedback lo
ops,
circular causality, nonlinearity, bifurcation, autopoiesis, order out of chaos,
emergence,
openness, symmetry braking, synergism, unpredictability, etc.) to the Internet.
(For a different approach that is critical in intention see Fuchs 2008.) Hartley
also does not seriously engage with the fact that thinkers like Friedrich August
Hayek (the concept of spontaneous order) and Niklas Luhmann (the concepts
of functional differentiation and self-reference) have used the language of self
organization
and complexity for ideologically legitimatizing neo-liberalism (see
Fuchs 2008, chapters 2 and 3). Hartley (2012, 57) only briefly asks if his appro
ach
is stalking horses for neo-liberalism. He has a negative answer to this question,
grounded in the fact that Adbusters magazine once also referred positively to ev
olutionary
economics. Just like with one of Hartleys (2005) earlier works, one gets
the impression that Digital Futures for Cultural and Media Studies is a Powerpoin
t
presentation by a management consultant that has the goal to nourish the entrepren
eurial
self (McGuigan 2006, 373). Hartley says that cultural analysis has
been shaped on the one hand by an approach that is critical in the Williams/
Hall tradition and on the other a romantic approach represented by the Fiske/
Hartley tradition that propagates as widely as possible the emancipationist potent
ial
of participatory media (Hartley 2012, 182). The opposition of critical
and romantic logically implies that Hartley considers his own approach as being
uncritical. Consequently, he propagates staying in the romantic tradition and th
e
thought that Cultural Studies turns from critique as a method to evolution as a
methodological goal (ibid., 183).The focus of theory shall, according to Hartley,
shift from critical studies to evolution. He argues for what one could term uncr
itical
evolutionary Cultural Studies.
Hartleys bottom line is that the Internet is a self-organizing network, in
which everyone is networked with everyone else (ibid., 196), and that this
system constitutes a new source of democracy and dialogic communication. He
does not take into account the simple counter-argument that not everybody has
access to this democratic self-organizing network: 32.7% of the world population
and only 13.5% of all Africans had access to the Internet in August 2012
(www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm, accessed August 30, 2012). Nor does he
take into account the argument that on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and so on,
someespecially large companies, established political actors and celebrities
are more equal than others, have more views, clicks, friends, connections, which
reflects the actual power inequalities of society (for a detailed form of this a
rgument,
see Fuchs 2011a, chapter 7; Fuchs 2013). Hartley (2012, 56) mentions that
social network markets may have hubs and be dominated by elites, but this analys
is
is not systematically connected to power inequalities in society. It rather seem
s
that Hartley assumes that such markets are nonetheless a realm of democracy supp
orts this view: After three decades of neoliberal discourse and a particular
version of globalization based on inequality, exclusion, and market fundamentali
sm,
the issue of labor foregrounded by [Andrew] Ross is clearly central. It is
difficult to imagine any meaningful project of Cultural Studiesunderstood political
ly
and sociallythat does not address the broader questions of how people
experience the economy and society in which they work (or seek work), perhaps
vote, and certainly consume (Couldry 2011, 1011).Vincent Mosco (2011, 230)
argues that labor remains the blind spot of communication and Cultural Studies
and that therefore labor needs to be placed high on the agenda or projects for th
e
renewal of Cultural Studies. S. Charusheela (2011, 177) says that it is a perennia
l
claim that Cultural Studies does not pay enough attention to economy. Given
this analysis, many contributors in Smiths (2011) volume hold that Cultural Studi
es
should explicitly reorient itself as Marxist Cultural Studies that works based
on Marxist theory, the analysis of labour and class and Critical Political Econo
my.
So, for example, Max Gulias (2011) argues that Cultural Studies needs a Marxist
methodology, which would require one to revisit Marxist labor theory, but
much non-Marxist Cultural Studies would stay preoccupied with the sign systems
constituted by consumer-spectators and disregard the labour of humans in
capitalism (ibid., 149). Randy Martin (2011) argues that financialization is a k
ey
topic for renewing Cultural Studies and grounding it in Marxism. Marcus Breen
says that in the era of neo-liberalism and capitalist crisis, for Cultural Studi
es the
time has come to reassert the primacy of political economy, by rearticulating
economy with culture instead of pretending that some sort of indeterminacy will
magically give Cultural Studies credibility (Breen 2011, 208).
The impression that one gets from the books by Grossberg, Hartley and Smith
is that paradoxically the crisis of capitalism is accompanied by a crisis of Cul
tural
Studies. At the same time, there are indications for a renewal of Marxism.
The implication is that the time is ripe for taking Marx seriously, reading Marx
,
using Marx for thinking about media, communication, and culture, introducing
Marx and Marxism to our students, and especially institutionalizing Marx and
Marxist studies in the courses about media, communication and culture taught
at universities as well as in the research we conduct and the projects we apply
for and help fund. It is time to no longer introduce students to small excerpts
from Marx and Engels as (alleged) examples of economic reductionism, but to
rather read together with them full works of Marx and Engels, such as Capital,
The Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts, the Grundrisse, The German Ideology, The
Communist Manifesto, The Condition of the Working Class in England, The Poverty
of
Philosophy,The Holy Family,The Class Struggle in France,The 18th Brumaire of Lou
is
Bonaparte,The Civil War in France,The Dialectics of Nature, the articles publish
ed in
Rheinische Zeitung, and so on. Marx is too often seen and treated as the outside
and outsider of the study of media, communication and culture. It is time that
he takes centre stage, which requires resources, institutions, positionsand there
fore
the struggle to change academia. Smiths (2011b) book shows that besides the class
/labour-relativist approach of Grossberg and the celebratory approach of
Hartley, there is also a true interest in Marx and the notions of class and labo
ur in
Cultural Studies. Speaking about Cultural Studies, Toby Miller (2010, 99) notes
that although labour is central to humanity, it is overall largely absent from our
field. He argues that in the cultural industries, a cognitariat has emerged that
has
high levels of educational attainment, and great facility with cultural technolog
ies
and genres and is facing conditions of flexible production and ideologies
of freedom (ibid., 98). He therefore suggests this equation: culture + labour =
precariat. Andrew Ross (2008, 2009) in a similar vein stresses the role of preca
rious
labour in the cultural industries. Creativity would for many come at a heavy
sacrificial costlonger hours in pursuit of the satisfying finish, price discounts
in
return for aesthetic recognition, self-exploitation in response to the gift of a
utonomy,
and dispensability in exchange for flexibility (Ross 2008, 34). Employees in
the IT industry would often describe their workplaces as high-tech sweatshops
(ibid., 43). Related work has in the field of Cultural Studies, for example, bee
n
advanced by Maxwell (2001a) and Maxwell and Miller (2005/2006). Hesmondhalgh
and Baker (2011) show the ambivalence of much creative industry work
that is precarious but cherished because of the fun, contacts, reputation, creat
ivity
and self-determination that it may involve. Such engagement with labour and
class within Cultural Studies complements the concern within the Political Econo
my
of the Media and Communication with issues relating to class, exploitation,
value and labour in the context of the media, culture and communication that
have been strongly inspired by Karl Marxs works (see Burston, Dyer-Witheford
and Hearn 2010; Fuchs and Mosco 2012; Huws 2003, McKercher and Mosco
2006, 2007; Mosco and McKercher 2008; Mosco, McKercher and Huws 2010).
The problem of Cultural Studies is, as Robert Babe says, that its poststructurali
st
turn [. . .] instigated the separation (Babe 2009, 9) from economics. A reintegra
tion
requires first and foremost setting aside poststructuralist Cultural Studies
(ibid., 196) and seriously engaging with Marx and Marxism.Various entry points
into the discussion of Marx today can be taken. One of them is via the concept
of value. One can equally choose other concepts such as labour, commodity or
capital as entry points because all of these notions are dialectically connected
:
commodities have value and are produced by labour in order to produce capital
that enables the production of more commodities.