Advertisement

Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 399–413 | Cite as

Web 2.0 Technologies of the Self

  • Maria BakardjievaEmail author
  • Georgia Gaden
Special Issue

Abstract

Although no scholarly consensus exists on the issue, the claim that a substantive reconfiguration of the Internet has occurred in the beginning of the 2000s has settled firmly in public common sense. The label tentatively chosen for the new turn in the medium’s evolution is Web 2.0. The developments constituting this turn have been contemplated from different perspectives in technical and business publications (O’Reilly 2005), in treatises on “convergence” or “participatory” culture (Jenkins 2006; Jenkins et al. 2009), and could be usefully interrogated by means of political economy concepts such as the “social factory” and “free labor” (Terranova 2004). Marked, or rather symbolically constructed, by these discursive pickets lies a field of practice that the members of the participatory culture, the “produsers” (Bruns 2008) of open journalism, blogs, social networking sites and other characteristic Web 2.0 applications inhabit and animate with their everyday thought, decision making and action. This paper undertakes a theoretical exploration of the user practices emerging and consolidating around the new technological and organizational models making up Web 2.0. It is informed by a qualitative study of bloggers and Facebook users conducted through focus group methodology, although the concrete empirical data are not presented here. Rather, the analysis employs the concept of “technologies of the self” by Foucault (1988) as a heuristic device in order to situate Web 2.0 use, first, in a long history of culturally evolved forms of self-constitution and, second, in a complex matrix of relationships with other types of technologies, namely, those of production, sign systems and power. This conceptual choice, we argue, furnishes a study of Web 2.0 use, which holds in balance its liberatory potential and its susceptibility to new forms of domination, rationalization and commodification.

Keywords

Web 2.0 Foucault Technologies of the self Critical theory Social networking sites Blogs 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The development of the ideas presented in this article has benefited from feedback and discussions in the context of the symposium Cultural Technologies/Culture of Technologies at Södertörn University, Stockholm held in October 2009, the 4S Annual Conference in Washington, DC, 2009 and the inspiring workshop “Who Am I Online?” organized in Århus in May 2010.

References

  1. Bakardjieva, M. (2005). Internet society. The Internet in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Bakardjieva, M. (2009). Subactivism: lifeworld and politics in the age of the Internet. Information Society, 25, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakardjieva, M. (2010). The Internet and subactivism: Cultivating young citizenship in everyday life. In T. Olson & P. Dahlgren (Eds.), Young people, ICTs, and democracy. Nordicom: Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (2001). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. boyd, D. (2006a). Friends, friendsters, and top 8: writing community into being on social network sites. First Monday, 11(12).Google Scholar
  6. boyd, D. (2006b). Identity production in a networked culture: Why youth heart MySpace. Talk at American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS-2006). St. Louis, MO. http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html.
  7. Brake, D. R. (2009). ‘As if nobody’s reading’?: The imagined audience and socio-technical biases in personal blogging practice in the UK. PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25535/, p. 198.
  8. Bruns, A., & Jacobs, J. (Eds.). (2006). Uses of blogs. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Bruns, A. (2008). Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: From production to produsage. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society (Information age, vol. 2). Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, G. (2001). The mutable mobile: Social theory in the wireless world. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkley and Los Angeles: Univ. California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1987). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. In J. Bernhauer & D. Rasmussen (Eds.), The final Foucault. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  16. Giddens, A. (1991). Modenity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Grimes, S., & Feenberg, A. (2009). Rationalizing play: a critical theory of digital gaming. The Information Society, 25(2), 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gutman, H. (1988). Rousseau’s confessions: A technology of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 99–120). Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hartmann, M. (2006). The triple articulation of ICT: Media as technological objects, symbolic environments and individual texts. In T. Berker, M. Hartmann, Y. Punie, & K. Ward (Eds.), Domestication of media and technology (pp. 80–102). Maidenhead and New York: Open Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  21. Herring, S., Kouper, I., Paolillo, J., Scheidt, A-L, Tyworth, M., Welsch, P., et al. (2005). Conversations in the blogosphere: An analysis “from the bottom up.” In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. Hutton, P. (1988). Foucault, Freud and the technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 121–144). Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York: New York Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jenkins, H. (with Puroshotma, R., Clinton, K., Weigel, M., & Robison, A.) (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ling, R. (1997). One can talk about mobile manners! The use of mobile telephones in inappropriate situations. In L. Haddon (Ed.), Communications on the move: The experience of mobile telephony in the 1990s. COST 248 report. Farsta: Tells.Google Scholar
  27. Ling, R., & Pedersen, P. E. (2005). Mobile communications: Re-negotiation of the social sphere. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Liu, H. (2007). Social network profiles as taste performances. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1). http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/liu.html.
  29. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind, self, and society: From the perspective of a social behaviorist (with an Introduction). Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nardi, B. A., Schiano, D. J., & Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogging as social activity, or, would you let 900 million people read your diary? Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, pp. 222–231.Google Scholar
  32. Nussbaum, E. (2007). ‘Say everything,’ New York. February 12, 2007. http://nymag.com/news/features/27341/.
  33. O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.
  34. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Padden, W. (1988). Theaters of humility and suspicion: Desert saints and New England puritans. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 64–79). Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rosenblum, D. (2007). What anyone can know: the privacy risks of social networking sites. IEEE Security and Privacy, 5(3), 40–49. May/June 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothwell, K. (1988). Hamlet’s “glass of fashion”: Power, self and the reformation. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 80–98). Amherst: Univ. Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  38. Sawicki, J. (1996). Feminism, Foucault, and ‘subjects’ of power and freedom. In S. J. Hekman (Ed.), Feminist interpretations of Michel Foucault (pp. 159–178). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  39. Slevin, J. (2000). The internet and society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  40. Smythe, D. W. (1994). Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism. In T. Guback (Ed.), Counterclockwise: Perspectives on communication (pp. 263–291). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  41. Strozier, R. (2002). Foucault, subjectivity and identity: Historical constructions of subject and self. Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  42. Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the information age. London, Ann Arbor: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  43. Thompson, J. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  44. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  45. Viégas, F. B. (2005). Bloggers’ expectations of privacy and accountability: An initial survey. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).Google Scholar
  46. Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power (p. 1988). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of facebookers: investigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses; predicting Facebook™ and offline popularity from sociability and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and CultureUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations