NanoEthics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 47–58 | Cite as

The Logic of Digital Utopianism

Original Paper

Abstract

With the Internet’s integration into mainstream society, online technologies have become a significant economic factor and a central aspect of everyday life. Thus, it is not surprising that news providers and social scientists regularly offer media-induced visions of a nearby future and that these horizons of expectation are continually expanding. This is true not only for the Web as a traditional media technology but also for 3D printing, which has freed modern media utopianism from its stigma of immateriality. Our article explores the fundamental semantic structures and simplification patterns of popular media utopias and unfolds the thesis that their resounding success is based on their instantaneous connectivity and compatibility to societal discourses in a broad variety of cultural, political, or economic contexts. Further, it addresses the social functions of utopian concepts in the digital realm.

Keywords

3D printing Digitalization Media utopias Prosumer Technology foresight Web. 2.0 

References

  1. 1.
    Dickel S, Schrape JF (2015) Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung. Emanzipation. Zur Architektur des digitalen Technikutopismus. Leviathan 43(3):442–463Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toffler A (1980) The third wave. democratization in the late twentieth century. Bantam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carpentier N, Dahlgren P, Pasquali F (2013) Waves of media democratization. A brief history of contemporary participatory practices in the media sphere. Convergence 19(3):287–294Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rifkin J (2014) The zero marginal cost society. The Internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ritzer G, Jurgenson N (2010) Production, consumption, prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital prosumer. J Consum Cult 10(1):13–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. https://www.eff.org/de/cyberspace-independence. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  7. 7.
    Husserl E (1970) The crises of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schütz A, Luckmann T (1973) The structures of the life-world. Northwestern University Press, EvanstonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bennett W, Segerberg A, Walker S (2014) Organization in the crowd: peer production in large-scale networked protests. Inf Commun Soc 17(2):232–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Economist (2012) A third Industrial Revolution. Special Report 04/21/2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dickel S, Schrape JF (2016) Materializing digital futures. In: Ferdinand JP, Petschow U, Dickel S (eds) The decentralized and networked future of value creation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 163–178Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Reilly T (2005) What is Web 2.0. In: O’Reilly Network. http://oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  13. 13.
    Gillmor D (2006) We the Media. O’Reilly, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Surowiecki, J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Anchor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benkler Y, Nissenbaum H (2006) Commons-based peer production and virtue. J Polit Philos 14(4):394–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McLuhan M (1964) Understanding media: the extensions of man. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kelly K (2005) We are the Web. Wired 13(8) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  18. 18.
    König R (2013) Wikipedia: between lay participation and elite knowledge representation. Inf Commun Soc 16(2):160–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dolata U, Schrape JF (2016) Masses, crowds, communities, movements: collective action in the Internet age. Soc Mov Stud 18(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Haucap J, Heimeshoff U (2014) Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization? IEEP 11(1/2):49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shirky C (1999) RIP the consumer, 1900–1999. In: Shirky’s writings about the Internet. http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/consumer.html. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  22. 22.
    Bruns A (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Castells M (2009) Communication power. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Paulussen S, Harder R (2014) Social media references in newspapers: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as sources in newspaper journalism. Journal Pract 8(5):542–551Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M (eds.) (2014) Twitter and society. Peter Lang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schrape, JF (2016) Social media, mass media and the public sphere. Differentiation, complementarity and co-existence. SOI Discussion Paper 2016-01. University of Stuttgart, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Newman B, Levy D, Nielson R (2016) Reuters Institute digital news report 2016. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital-News-Report-2016.pdf. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  29. 29.
    Jarren O (2008) Massenmedien als Intermediäre. Zur anhaltenden Relevanz der Massenmedien für die öffentliche Kommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 56(3/4):329–346Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bruns A (2007) Habermas and/against the Internet. In: Snurblog. http://snurb.info/node/621. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  31. 31.
    Anderson C (2006).The long tail. Hyperion, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Louis T (2013) How much do average apps make? In: Forbes Tech. http://www.forbes.com/sites/tristanlouis/2013/08/10/how-much-do-average-apps-make/. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  33. 33.
    Shelanski H (2013) Information, innovation, and competition policy for the Internet. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 161:1663–1705Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gerlitz C, Helmond A (2013) The like economy: social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media Soc 15(8):1348–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stöber R (2004) What media evolution is. A theoretical approach to the history of new media. Eur J Commun 19(4):483–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zerdick A, Schrape K, Artopé A, Goldhammer L, Lange U, Vierkant E, Lopez-Escobar S,R (2000) The media and communications sectors. A review looking forward. In: Zerdick A et al (eds) E-conomics: strategies for the digital marketplace. Springer, New York, pp 28–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Brecht B (1967) Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 18. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Main), pp 127–134Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schickler E (1994) Democratizing technology: hierarchy and innovation in public life. Polity 27(2):175–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sterling T (1986) Democracy in an information society. Inf Soc 4(1/2):9–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lévy P (1994) L’intelligence collective. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Dijck J (2013) The culture of connectivity: a critical history of social media. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Evans D (2012) The Internet of everything. How more relevant and valuable connections will change the world. Whitepaper. Cisco ISBG. https://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/docs/innov/IoE.pdf. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  43. 43.
    Dickel S, Ferdinand JP, Petschow U (2016) The multiple applications of 3D printing: between maker movements and the future of manufacturing. In: Ferdinand JP, Petschow U, Dickel S (eds) The decentralized and networked future of value creation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 9–26Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Boyer A (2004) Wealth without money. In: RepRap Wiki. http://reprap.org/wiki/Wealth_Without_Money. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  45. 45.
    Dickel S, Ferdinand JP, Petschow, U (2014) Shared machine shops as real-life laboratories. Journal of Peer Production 5. http://peerproduction.net/ issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  46. 46.
    Gershenfeld NA (2005) Fab. The coming revolution on your desktop. From personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anderson C (2010) In the next industrial revolution. Atoms are the new bits. Wired 2(10):58–67Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Anderson C (2012) Makers. The new industrial revolution. Crown Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kirk A (2001) Appropriating technology: the whole earth catalog and counterculture environmental politics. Environ Hist 6(3):374–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Diederichsen D, Franke A (eds.) (2013) The whole earth. California and the disappearance of the outside. Sternberg Press, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Watson M, Shove E (2008) Product, competence, project and practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption. J Consum Cult 8(1):69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Troxler P, Maxigas (2014) We now have the means of production, but where is my revolution? Journal of Peer Production 5. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/editorial-section/. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  53. 53.
    Grunwald A (2014) The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. J Responsib Innov 1(3):274–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jasanoff S, Sang-Hyun K (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2):119–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Luhmann N (2000) The reality of the mass media. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Luhmann N (2013) Theory of society. Volume 2. Stanford University Press, StandfordGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    More T (1983) Utopia [De optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia], Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tocchetti S (2012) DIYbiologists as ‘makers’ of personal biologies: how MAKE magazine and Maker Faires contribute in constituting biology as a personal technology. Journal of Peer Production (2). http://peerproduction.net/issues/ issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/diybiologists-as-makers/. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  59. 59.
    Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations 5. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Barba E (2015) Three reasons why the future is in the making. Sci Technol Hum Values 40(4):638–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Holbrook T, Osborn L (2016) Digital patent infringement in an era of 3D printing. U.C. Davis L. Rev 48:1319–1385Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lanier J (2006) Digital maoism: the hazards of the new online collectivism. The Edge 5/29/2006 https://www.edge.org/conversation/digital-maoism-the-hazards-of-the-new-online-collectivism. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  63. 63.
    McCray P (2013) The visioneers. How a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sand M (2016) Responsibility and visioneering—opening Pandora’s box. NanoEthics 10(1):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Konrad K (2006) The social dynamics of expectations. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Simondon G (2009) Technical mentality. Parrhesia 7: 7–27Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Esposito E (2011) The future of futures: the time of money in financing and society. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dickel S, Franzen M (2016) The “problem of extension” revisited: new modes of digital participation in science. Journal of Science Communication 15. http://jcom.sissa.it/sites/default/files/documents/JCOM_1501_2016_A06_en.pdf. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
  70. 70.
    Nassehi A (1999) Differenzierungsfolgen. Beiträge zur Soziologie der Moderne. Springer VS, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Luhmann N (1976) The future cannot begin: temporal structures in modern society. Soc Res 43:130–152Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Geels F (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Levitas R (1990) The concept of utopia. Allan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Friedrich Schiedel Endowed Chair of Sociology of ScienceTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Organizational Sociology and Innovation StudiesUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations