Advertisement

Permanent Connectivity: From Modes of Restrictions to Strategies of Resistance

  • Thomas SteinmaurerEmail author
  • Helena Atteneder
Chapter
Part of the Ethik in mediatisierten Welten book series (EMW)

Abstract

The current level of permanent connectivity can be conceptualized as a new dispositif of communication defined by a new status of individual integration into the technological infrastructures of digital networks. On the one hand, new potentials and options for everyday life are offered at the level of digital connectivities. At the same time, numerous risks and disruptions are arising out of the techno-economic impact forces of the Internet. This leads to various imbalances, like new power structures of surveillance or erosions of privacy, impelling us to develop different ways of integrating digital technologies into everyday life. Against this background we suggest adopting Hall’s model of encoding/decoding of communication within the context of digital network structures, in order to differentiate between various modes of network ‘behavior’—reaching from unreflected and full adoption of power structures to modes of rejection of and resistance to network structures in different ways. In most of the cases, we observed that it is challenging for users to develop new ‘technologies of the self’ to strengthen their skills and literacies to meet the dominant impact forces in network structures. In addition, the ethical implications of current developments are considerable and require concepts of digital ethics and resilience to be further developed in digital network environments.

Keywords

Permanent connectivity Dispositif Digital network behavior Encoding/decoding Technologies of the self Surveillance Privacy Techno-economic power structures 

References

  1. Adams, P. C., & Jansson, A. (2012). Communication geography: A bridge between disciplines. Communication Theory, 22(3), 299–318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01406.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apprich, C. (2015). Vernetzt. Zur Entstehung der Netzwerkgesellschaft. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  3. Atteneder, H. (2018). Geomedia: Manifestations of power as mediatized communication practices – A Foucauldian approach. GI_Forum, 6(2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atteneder, H., Peil, C., Maier-Rabler, U., & Steinmaurer, T. (2017). Digitale Resilienz und soziale Verantwortung. Überlegungen zur Entwicklung eines Konzepts. Medien Journal, 41(1), 48–55.Google Scholar
  5. Atteneder, H., & Collini-Nocker, B. (2018). Geomedia and privacy in context. Paradoxical behaviour or the unwitting sharing of geodata with digital platforms? Mediatization Studies, 2, 17–48.Google Scholar
  6. Bakardjieva, M., & Gaden, G. (2012). Web 2.0 technologies of the self. Philosophy & Technology, 25(3), 399–413.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-011-0032-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnes, S. B. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11(9).  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v11i9.1394.
  8. Baudry, J.-L. (1993). Ideologische Effekte erzeugt vom Basisapparat. Eikon—Internationale Zeitschrift für Photographie und Medienkunst, 5, 34–43.Google Scholar
  9. Bauman, Z. (2007). Liquid arts. Theory, Culture & Society, 24(1), 117–126.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276407071579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self-disclosure in social media. Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 64, 635–657.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beck, K. (2010). Ethik der Online-Kommunikation. In W. Schweiger & K. Beck (Eds.), Handbuch Online-Kommunikation (pp. 130–155). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burkitt, I. (2002). Technologies of the self: Habitus and capacities. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 32(2), 219–237.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Butler, M. (2007). Would you like to play a game? Die Kultur des Computerspielens. Berlin: Kadmos.Google Scholar
  14. Capurro, R. (2000). Das Internet und die Grenzen der Ethik. Eine neue Informationsethik stellt sich den Ergebnissen der Medienwirkungsforschung. In M. Rath (Ed.), Medienethik und Medienwirkungsforschung (pp. 105–126). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capurro, R. (2010). Digital ethics. In The Academy of Korean Studies (Ed.), 2009 Civilization and peace (pp. 203–214). Korea: The Academy of Korean Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Chan, M. (2013). Mobile phones and the good life. Examining the relationships among mobile use, social capital and subjective well-being. New Media & Society, 17(1), 96-113.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813516836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, M., & Jansson, A. (2015). Complicit surveillance, interveillance, and the question of cosmopolitanism. Toward a phenomenological understanding of mediatization. New Media & Society, 17(9), 1473–1491.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814528678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clarke, R. A. (1988). Information technology and dataveillance. Communication of the ACM, 31(6), 498–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Couldry, N. (2010). Media ethics: Towards a framework for media producers and media consumers. In S. J. A. Ward & H. Wasserman (Eds.), Media ethics beyond borders. A global perspective (pp. 59–72). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. de Vries, K. (2009). Identity in a world of ambiant intelligence. In Y. Abbas & F. Dervin (Eds.), Digital technologies of the self (pp. 15–36). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Ess, C. (2009). Digital media ethics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Foot, K. (2014). The online emergence of pushback on social media in the United States. A historical discourse analysis. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1313–1342.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fuchs, C. (2011). New media, web 2.0 and surveillance. Sociological Compass, 5(2), 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media. A critical introduction. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Funiok, R. (2000). Zwischen empirischer Realität und medienpädagogischer Praxis. Das Publikum als Adressat der Medienethik. In M. Rath (Ed.), Medienethik und Medienwirkungsforschung (pp. 89–104). Wiesbaden: VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galloway, A. (2013). Affective politics in urban computing and locative media. Throughout: Art and Culture Emerging with Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 351–364). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Genner, S. (2017). ON-OFF. Risks and rewards of the anytime-anywhere Internet. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag.Google Scholar
  29. Gergen, K. J. (2003). Self and community in the new floating worlds. In K. Nyíri (Ed.), Mobile democracy. Essays on society, self and politics (pp. 103–114). Wien: Passagen.Google Scholar
  30. Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  32. Grimm, P. (2013). Werte- und Normenaspekte der Online-Medien – Positionsbeschreibung einer digitalen Ethik. In M. Karmasin, M. Rath, & B. Thomaß (Eds.), Normativität in der Kommunikationswissenschaft (pp. 371–395). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. An edited extract from S. Hall, ‘Encoding and decoding in the television discourse’, CCCS stencilled paper no. 7. In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, & P. Willis (Eds.), Culture, media, language (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  34. Hickethier, K. (1992). Kommunikationsgeschichte. Geschichte der Mediendispositive. Medien & Zeit, 7(2), 26–28.Google Scholar
  35. Jansson, A. (2015). Interveillance: a new culture of recognition and mediatization. Media and Communication, 3(3), 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Karppi, T. (2011). Digital suicide and the biopolitics of leaving Facebook. Transformations—Journal of Media, Culture & Technology, 20, 1–18.Google Scholar
  37. Katz, J. E., & Aakhus, M. A. (Eds.). (2002). Perpetual contact. Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kaun, A., & Schwarzenegger, C. (2014). “No media, less life?” Online disconnection in mediatized worlds. First Monday, 19(11).  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i11.5497.
  39. Kirschner, H. (2017). Zurück zu den wirklich wichtigen Dingen – Blocking-Apps als milde Lösungen für problematisierte Mediatisierungstendenzen. In M. Pfadenhauer & T. Grenz (Eds.), De-Mediatisierung: Diskontinuitäten, Non-Linearitäten und Ambivalenzen im Mediatisierungsprozess (pp. 225–236). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lamsal, M. (2012). The structuration approach of Anthony Giddens. Himalayan Journal of Sociology & Anthropology, V, 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Light, B. (2014). Disconnecting with social networking sites. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the Internet: Great expectations, challenging realities. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  43. Lovink, G. (2012). Das halbwegs Soziale. Eine Kritik der Vernetzungskultur. Bielefeld: transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lovink, G. (2016). Im Bann der Plattformen: Die nächste Runde der Netzkritik. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar
  45. Maffesoli, M. (1988). Le temps des tribus. Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  46. Meckel, M. (2008). Das Glück der Unerreichbarkeit. Wege aus der Kommunikationsfalle (4. Ed.). Hamburg: Murmann.Google Scholar
  47. Mejias, U. A. (2013). Off the network. Disrupting the digital world. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mitcheson, K. (2012). Foucault’s technologies of the self: Between control and creativity. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 43(1), 59–75.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.2012.11006757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mitrea, O. S. (2006). Understanding the mobile telephony usage patterns. The rise of the mobile communication “dispositif”. Dissertation Universität Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  50. Mosco, V. (2018). Becoming digital. Toward a post-Internet society. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  51. O’Regan, M. (2009). New technologies of the self and social networking sites. Hospitality exchange clubs and the changing nature of tourism and identity. In Y. Abbas & F. Dervin (Eds.), Digital technologies of the self (pp. 171–198). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Pfadenhauer, M., & Grenz, T. (Eds.). (2017). De-Mediatisierung. Diskontinuitäten, Non-Linearitäten und Ambivalenzen im Mediatisierungsprozess. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  53. Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption. The performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media & Society, 15(7), 1041–1057.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812465139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prisching, M. (2017). Logiken der De-Mediatisierung: Begründungen und Rechtfertigungen. In M. Pfadenhauer & T. Grenz (Eds.), De-Mediatisierung: Diskontinuitäten, Non-Linearitäten und Ambivalenzen im Mediatisierungsprozess (pp. 93–110). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. The new social operating system. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rath, M. (2014). Ethik der mediatisierten Welt. Grundlagen und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  57. Rauch, J. (2011). The origin of slow media. Transformations—Journal of Media, Culture & Technology, 20, 1–10.Google Scholar
  58. Reichert, R. (2007). Netzdispositive. Selbsttechniken und Wissenstechniken im Web 2.0. SPIEL, 26(2), 211–230.Google Scholar
  59. Roitsch, C. (2017). Von der „Aversion“ zum „Schutzwall“: Kommunikative Grenzziehung als gegenläufiges Medienhandeln in mediatisierten Welten. In M. Pfadenhauer & T. Grenz (Eds.), De-Mediatisierung: Diskontinuitäten, Non-Linearitäten und Ambivalenzen im Mediatisierungsprozess (pp. 207–224). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rosa, H. (2016). Resonanz. Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  61. Rowan, J., & Cooper, M. (Eds.). (1999). The plural self. Multiplicity in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Selwyn, N. (2003). Apart from technology: Understanding people’s non-use of information and communication technologies in everyday life. Technology in Society, 25, 99–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00062-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sen, A. K. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Siles, I. (2012). Web technologies of the self. The arising of the “blogger” identity. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 408–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01581.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Spiekermann, S., & Grossklags, J. (2005). E-privacy in 2nd generation e-commerce. Privacy preferences versus actual behavior. CACM, 48(3), 38–47.Google Scholar
  66. Stäheli, U. (2013). Entnetzt euch! Praktiken und Ästhetiken der Anschlusslosigkeit. Mittelweg 36, 22(4), 3–28.Google Scholar
  67. Steinmaurer, T. (2014). Mediatized connectivity. Historical traits of telephony and theoretical considerations about a new dispositive of communication. In A. Hepp & F. Krotz (Eds.), Mediatized worlds. Culture and society in a media age (pp. 91–106). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Syvertsen, T. (2017). Media resistance. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Utz, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited. The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 3(2) https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4223/3265.
  70. Woodstock, L. (2014). Media resistance. Opportunities for practice theory and new media research. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1983–2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication Science, Center for ICT&SUniversität SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations