New Media, New Politics? Theoretical Interventions and International Invocations

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Sep 5, 2014 Region
[Protesters march through the financial district in New York. Photo by David Shankbone from Wikimedia Commons] [Protesters march through the financial district in New York. Photo by David Shankbone from Wikimedia Commons]

New Media, New Politics? Theoretical Interventions and International Invocations

By : Media Page Editors

As part of the Jadaliyya Roundtable on New Media and New Politics, we offer three audio presentations from the April 2013 Westminster conference that address matters of mediation from theoretical and international perspectives. The topics presented here problematize analyses of the Arab revolutionary action and mediation by looking at these through the prism of "liberation technology," as synerigistic with South American Occupy movements, and as refractions of Marxist theorizations of digital media.  

Orientalism of Liberation Technologies: Power Dynamics Between Hackers, Activists, and the Media

Ulises A. Mejias, State University of New York at Oswego 


The story of how social media have been applied in recent protest movements is a story that has been told in large part by the mainstream news media. Often, the focus has been on the tools being used, rather than on the people using them. The result is a reductionist view of social movements as nothing more than “Twitter revolutions” facilitated by “liberation technologies.” In this paper, I will provide new insights into the designs, applications, and media representations of information technologies used to organize mass protest movements, theorizing the order and disorder that is produced as social actors shape—and are shaped by—technologies that facilitate political participation. The goal is to contribute towards new explanations of how political changes manifest themselves across contemporary societies by explaining how activists across the globe are attempting to create new forms of digital collectivity to enact social change. Additionally, I intend to explore the motivations of the hackers who design “liberation technologies” and the journalists who report on their use, examining how discourses around digital activism are framed. I will argue that the narratives created around the design and use of liberation technologies often constitute a utopian discourse that tends to circumvent any discussion of the capitalist market structure in which these tools operate. In essence, I will argue that the trope of a revolution enabled by social media serves to depoliticize our understanding of the conflicts and camouflage the role of communicative capitalism in undermining democracy. I will situate this argument in a larger cultural and economic analysis of digitality, examining the emergence of the monopsony as the dominant market structure of social media, and the role of for-profit digital networks as platforms that increase participation while simultaneously increasing inequality.

"The Invisible Spring:" Internet in the Indignation and Occupation Movements and the Cases of Colombia and Brazil

Liliana Galindo-Ramirez, University of Grenoble

Faced with the "Arab Spring," the Occupy Wall Street and the Indignados in Spain there is widespread ignorance about their international impact: these movements pierced its borders to connect with the inconsistency of other contexts, where the use of Internet and social networks involved the configuration of a particular mode of protest and mobilization. What is the relationship between these events and the mobilizations in other contexts? Two cases concern us: the MANE (Mesa Amplia Nacional Estudiantil) in Colombia, who deployed an unprecedented student movement in the last forty years of national history, whose founding charter explicitly refers to the events in Tunisia, Egypt, and Spain; and ACAMPA SAMPA OCUPA SAMPA from the Occupy movement in Sao Paulo, born of the global call to install camps in different cities in October 2011. This paper shows how the emergence of new forms of communication involves a reconfiguration of political action.

Marxist Theory and Digital Media: Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács`s Contribution to the Theorization of Modern Media--Reification, Mediation and Standardisation

Rob Jackson, King`s College-London

 
Discussion of the significance of modern digital media, the Internet and social networking technology in particular, has become a staple diet of public discourse both in and beyond the academy. There have been few attempts however to examine what resources might be contributed to this discussion by thinkers in the Marxist tradition. I intend to select two such thinkers: Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács in order to assess the potential importance of their respective conceptions of standardisation and reified mediation for this discussion. I will argue that Gramsci’s analysis in the Prison Notebooks of the process of standardization can usefully reframe the digital media debate. From this point of view, the Internet and social networking technology can be seen as a qualitatively new stage within a wider social process of mass-ification. I will further suggest that Lukács’s conceptions of reification and mediation provide the analytical tools to explain the apparent subjectivity of these technologies themselves (e.g. Facebook as a revolutionary agent–see Paul Mason), without accepting their subjectivity as authentic or discounting the significance of this appearance for political theory. I will conclude that Marxist theory helps to explain the contradictory nature of digital media, both as a tool for the development of social movements and for the re-production of ever more highly reified and alienated levels of consciousness and social relations.
Tags

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • The BBC and Israel’s War on Context: Part 2

      The BBC and Israel’s War on Context: Part 2

      Jadaliyya has obtained access to leaked internal emails from the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, revealing the depth of staff grievances at its coverage of the genocide in Palestine, and accusing the BBC of complicity. In an email dated 1 May 2024, Beirut-based BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem wrote to the Director General of the BBC, Tim Davie, as well as several departments of BBC News staff, detailing the BBC’s editorial failings, which he considered ‘evidence of a collapse in the application of basic standards and norms of journalism that seems aligned with Israel’s propaganda strategy.’ Ruhayem indicated that BBC management had failed to respond to ‘a mass of evidence-based critique of coverage’ from members of staff. In conclusion, he wrote, ‘instead of putting together mechanisms for a thorough examination of output, and for inclusive, respectful, and professional discussions guided by [BBC] standards and values, it appears management has opted to oversee a continuation of the editorial direction the BBC has taken since October.’

    • The BBC and Israel’s War on Context: Part 1

      The BBC and Israel’s War on Context: Part 1

      Jadaliyya has obtained access to leaked internal emails from the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, revealing the depth of staff grievances at its coverage of the genocide in Palestine, and accusing the BBC of complicity. In an email dated 1 May 2024, Beirut-based BBC correspondent Rami Ruhayem wrote to the Director General of the BBC, Tim Davie, as well as several departments of BBC News staff, detailing the BBC’s editorial failings, which he considered ‘evidence of a collapse in the application of basic standards and norms of journalism that seems aligned with Israel’s propaganda strategy.’ Ruhayem indicated that BBC management had failed to respond to ‘a mass of evidence-based critique of coverage’ from members of staff. In conclusion, he wrote, ‘instead of putting together mechanisms for a thorough examination of output, and for inclusive, respectful, and professional discussions guided by [BBC] standards and values, it appears management has opted to oversee a continuation of the editorial direction the BBC has taken since October.’

    • Media on Media Roundup (May 17)

      Media on Media Roundup (May 17)
      This week’s Jadaliyya “Media on Media” roundup covers several important stories affecting the Middle East and North African mediascape. A ransomware cyberattack named #WannaCry, which initially affe
Jan 9, 2012 Lebanon
Maya Mikdashi By :
Maya Mikdashi

American Elections Watch 1: Rick Santorum and The Dangers of Theocracy

One day after returning to the United States after a trip to Lebanon, I watched the latest Republican Presidential Primary Debate. Unsurprisingly, Iran loomed large in questions related to foreign policy. One by one (with the exception of Ron Paul) the candidates repeated President Obama`s demand that Iran not block access to the Strait of Hormuz and allow the shipping of oil across this strategic waterway. Watching them, I was reminded of Israel`s demand that Lebanon not exploit its own water resources in 2001-2002. Israel`s position was basically that Lebanon`s sovereign decisions over the management of Lebanese water resources was a cause for war. In an area where water is increasingly the most valuable resource, Israel could not risk the possibility that its water rich neighbor might disrupt Israel`s ability to access Lebanese water resources through acts of occupation, underground piping, or unmitigated (because the Lebanese government has been negligent in exploiting its own water resources) river flow. In 2012, the United States has adopted a similar attitude towards Iran, even though the legal question of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz is much more complicated and involves international maritime law in addition to Omani and Iranian claims of sovereignty. But still, US posturing towards Iran is reminiscent of Israeli posturing towards Lebanon. It goes something like this: while the US retains the right to impose sanctions on Iran and continuously threaten war over its alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iran should not dare to assume that it can demand the removal of US warships from its shores and, more importantly, should not dream of retaliating in any way to punitive sanctions imposed on it. One can almost hear Team America`s animated crew breaking into song . . . “America . . . Fuck Yeah!”

During the debate in New Hampshire, Rick Santorum offered a concise answer as to why a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated and why the United States-the only state in the world that has actually used nuclear weapons, as it did when it dropped them on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- should go to war over this issue. Comparing Iran to other nuclear countries that the United States has learned to “tolerate” and “live with” such as Pakistan and North Korea, Santorum offered this succinct nugget of wisdom: Iran is a theocracy. Coming from a man who has stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in schools, that President Obama is a secular fanatic, that the United States is witnessing a war on religion, and that God designed men and women in order to reproduce and thus marriage should be only procreative (and thus heterosexual and “fertile”), Santorum`s conflation of “theocracy” with “irrationality” seemed odd. But of course, that is not what he was saying. When Santorum said that Iran was a theocracy what he meant is that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and thus its leaders are irrational, violent, and apparently (In Santorum`s eyes) martyrdom junkies. Because Iran is an Islamic theocracy, it cannot be “trusted” by the United States to have nuclear weapons. Apparently, settler colonial states such as Israel (whose claim to “liberal “secularism” is tenuous at best), totalitarian states such as North Korea, or unstable states such as Pakistan (which the United States regularly bombs via drones and that is currently falling apart because, as Santorum stated, it does not know how to behave without a “strong” America) do not cause the same radioactive anxiety. In Santorum`s opinion, a nuclear Iran would not view the cold war logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a deterrent. Instead, the nation of Iran would rush to die under American or Israeli nuclear bombs because martyrdom is a religious (not national, Santorum was quick to state, perhaps realizing that martyrdom for nation is an ideal woven into the tapestry of American ideology) imperative. Santorum`s views on Iran can be seen one hour and two minutes into the debate.

When it comes to Islam, religion is scary, violent and irrational, says the American Presidential candidate who is largely running on his “faith based” convictions. This contradiction is not surprising, given that in the United States fundamentalist Christians regularly and without irony cite the danger that American muslims pose-fifth column style- to American secularism. After all, recently Christian fundamentalist groups succeeded in pressuring advertisers to abandon a reality show that (tediously) chronicled the lives of “American Muslims” living in Detroit. The great sin committed by these American Muslims was that they were too damn normal. Instead of plotting to inject sharia law into the United States Constitution, they were busy shopping at mid-western malls. Instead of marrying four women at a time and vacationing at Al-Qaeda training camps in (nuclear, but not troublingly so) Pakistan, these “American Muslims” were eating (halal) hotdogs and worrying about the mortgages on their homes and the rising costs of college tuition. Fundamentalist Christians watched this boring consumer driven normalcy with horror and deduced that it must be a plot to make Islam appear compatible with American secularism. The real aim of the show, these Christian fundamentalists (who Rick Santorum banks on for political and financial support) reasoned, was to make Islam appear “normal” and a viable religious option for American citizens. Thus the reality show “All American Muslim” was revealed to be a sinister attempt at Islamic proselytizing. This in a country where Christian proselytizing is almost unavoidable. From television to subways to doorbell rings to presidential debates to busses to street corners and dinner tables-there is always someone in America who wants to share the “good news” with a stranger. Faced with such a blatant, and common, double standard, we should continue to ask “If Muslim proselytizers threaten our secular paradise, why do Christian proselytizers not threaten our secular paradise?”

As the United States Presidential Elections kick into gear, we can expect the Middle East to take pride of place in questions pertaining to foreign policy. Already, Newt Gingrich who, if you forgot, has a PhD in history, has decided for all of us, once and for all, that the Palestinians alone in this world of nations are an invented people. Palestinians are not only a fraudulent people, Gingrich has taught us, they are terrorists as well. Candidates stumble over each other in a race to come up with more creative ways to pledge America`s undying support for Israel. Iran is the big baddie with much too much facial hair and weird hats. America is held hostage to Muslim and Arab oil, and must become “energy efficient” in order to free itself from the unsavory political relationships that come with such dependancy. Candidates will continue to argue over whether or not President Obama should have or should not have withdrawn US troops from Iraq, but no one will bring up the reality that the US occupation of Iraq is anything but over. But despite the interest that the Middle East will invite in the coming election cycle, there are a few questions that we can confidently assume will not be asked or addressed. Here are a few predictions. We welcome additional questions from readers.

Question: What is the difference between Christian Fundamentalism and Muslim Fundamentalism? Which is the greater “threat” to American secularism, and why?

Question: The United States` strongest Arab ally is Saudi Arabia, an Islamic theocracy and authoritarian monarchy which (falsely) cites Islamic law to prohibit women from driving cars, voting, but has recently (yay!) allowed women to sell underwear to other women. In addition, Saudi Arabia has been fanning the flames of sectarianism across the region, is the main center of financial and moral support for Al-Qaeda and is studying ways to “obtain” (the Saudi way, just buy it) a nuclear weapon-all as part and parcel of a not so cold war with Iran. Given these facts, how do you respond to critics that doubt the United States` stated goals of promoting democracy, human rights, women`s rights, and “moderate” (whatever that is) Islam?

Question: Israel has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them in the past. True or false?

Question: How are Rick Santorum`s views on homosexuality (or the Christian right`s views more generally) different than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad`s or King Abdullah`s? Can you help us tease out the differences when all three have said that as long as homosexuals do not engage in homosexual sex, it`s all good?

Question: Is the special relationship between the United States and Israel more special because they are both settler colonies, or is something else going on?