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.
Notes
This article partly resumes, expands, and elaborates our lines of arguments on digital media utopianism initially introduced in [1]. We wish to thank the reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions, which led to significant improvements in the final outcome.
From a historical perspective, the situation that basic communication infrastructures are operated and driven by private sector providers is not an exclusive phenomenon of our time. The invention of the metal movable-type printing press, for instance, was driven by Johannes Gutenberg and his investor due to tangible economic interests; and from the mid-fifteenth century on, it was able to spread rapidly primarily in light of its high sales potential along the European trade routes [35]. However, the novelty of digital modernity is the hegemony of a very few multinational companies as the operators of the key infrastructures of communication and information retrieval on a global scale that can hardly be counteracted by means of national government regulations. Indeed, such a level of power concentration was never reached in previous phases of media consolidation [36].
Our concept of media utopias as forms of utopian communication is related to other concepts in technology assessment and science and technology studies, first and foremost Armin Grunwald’s concept of visionary “techno-futures.” These futures are “decades away, and exhibit revolutionary features in terms of technology and of culture, human behavior, and individual and social issues” ([53], p. 285). At least all far-ranging techno-utopias are visionary techno-futures. It is, however, an empirical question, if all techno-futures share the narrative patterns that we reconstructed in our research. This can also be said regarding the concept of “socio-technical imaginaries” [54], which is primarily used to make sense of national innovation politics.
This definition is in alignment with the semantic origin of the utopian concept—the “Utopia” of the humanist Thomas More [57]: His book (first published in 1516) combines a radical critique of the current social order with the construction of a radical alternative of social interaction.
Dedicated visioneers are often directly based in the San Francisco Bay area or other centers of technological innovation: “Visioneering means developing a broad and comprehensive vision for how the future might be radically changed by technology, doing research and engineering to advance this vision, and promoting one’s ideas to the public and policy makers in the hopes of generating attention and perhaps even realization.” [63 p. 13.] In this context, Martin Sand stresses the importance “to study the intentions of visioneers, their alternatives, and the effects of their actions thoroughly to find out whether they are responsible.” [64, p. 84]
References
Dickel S, Schrape JF (2015) Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung. Emanzipation. Zur Architektur des digitalen Technikutopismus. Leviathan 43(3):442–463
Toffler A (1980) The third wave. democratization in the late twentieth century. Bantam, New York
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):287–294
Rifkin J (2014) The zero marginal cost society. The Internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave, New York
Ritzer G, Jurgenson N (2010) Production, consumption, prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital prosumer. J Consum Cult 10(1):13–36
Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. https://www.eff.org/de/cyberspace-independence. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
Husserl E (1970) The crises of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Schütz A, Luckmann T (1973) The structures of the life-world. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
Bennett W, Segerberg A, Walker S (2014) Organization in the crowd: peer production in large-scale networked protests. Inf Commun Soc 17(2):232–260
The Economist (2012) A third Industrial Revolution. Special Report 04/21/2012
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 163–178
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
Gillmor D (2006) We the Media. O’Reilly, Sebastopol
Surowiecki, J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Anchor, New York
Benkler Y, Nissenbaum H (2006) Commons-based peer production and virtue. J Polit Philos 14(4):394–419
McLuhan M (1964) Understanding media: the extensions of man. McGraw-Hill, New York
Kelly K (2005) We are the Web. Wired 13(8) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/tech.html. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
König R (2013) Wikipedia: between lay participation and elite knowledge representation. Inf Commun Soc 16(2):160–177
Dolata U, Schrape JF (2016) Masses, crowds, communities, movements: collective action in the Internet age. Soc Mov Stud 18(1):1–18
Haucap J, Heimeshoff U (2014) Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization? IEEP 11(1/2):49–61
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
Bruns A (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang, New York
Castells M (2009) Communication power. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven
Paulussen S, Harder R (2014) Social media references in newspapers: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as sources in newspaper journalism. Journal Pract 8(5):542–551
Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M (eds.) (2014) Twitter and society. Peter Lang, New York
Schrape, JF (2016) Social media, mass media and the public sphere. Differentiation, complementarity and co-existence. SOI Discussion Paper 2016-01. University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart
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
Jarren O (2008) Massenmedien als Intermediäre. Zur anhaltenden Relevanz der Massenmedien für die öffentliche Kommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 56(3/4):329–346
Bruns A (2007) Habermas and/against the Internet. In: Snurblog. http://snurb.info/node/621. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
Anderson C (2006).The long tail. Hyperion, New York
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
Shelanski H (2013) Information, innovation, and competition policy for the Internet. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 161:1663–1705
Gerlitz C, Helmond A (2013) The like economy: social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media Soc 15(8):1348–1365
Stöber R (2004) What media evolution is. A theoretical approach to the history of new media. Eur J Commun 19(4):483–505
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 28–135
Brecht B (1967) Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 18. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Main), pp 127–134
Schickler E (1994) Democratizing technology: hierarchy and innovation in public life. Polity 27(2):175–199
Sterling T (1986) Democracy in an information society. Inf Soc 4(1/2):9–47
Lévy P (1994) L’intelligence collective. La Découverte, Paris
Van Dijck J (2013) The culture of connectivity: a critical history of social media. Oxford University Press, Oxford
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
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 9–26
Boyer A (2004) Wealth without money. In: RepRap Wiki. http://reprap.org/wiki/Wealth_Without_Money. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
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
Gershenfeld NA (2005) Fab. The coming revolution on your desktop. From personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic, New York
Anderson C (2010) In the next industrial revolution. Atoms are the new bits. Wired 2(10):58–67
Anderson C (2012) Makers. The new industrial revolution. Crown Business, New York
Kirk A (2001) Appropriating technology: the whole earth catalog and counterculture environmental politics. Environ Hist 6(3):374–394
Diederichsen D, Franke A (eds.) (2013) The whole earth. California and the disappearance of the outside. Sternberg Press, Berlin
Watson M, Shove E (2008) Product, competence, project and practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption. J Consum Cult 8(1):69–89
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
Grunwald A (2014) The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. J Responsib Innov 1(3):274–291
Jasanoff S, Sang-Hyun K (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2):119–146
Luhmann N (2000) The reality of the mass media. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Luhmann N (2013) Theory of society. Volume 2. Stanford University Press, Standford
More T (1983) Utopia [De optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia], Penguin, London
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
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations 5. Free Press, New York
Barba E (2015) Three reasons why the future is in the making. Sci Technol Hum Values 40(4):638–650
Holbrook T, Osborn L (2016) Digital patent infringement in an era of 3D printing. U.C. Davis L. Rev 48:1319–1385
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
McCray P (2013) The visioneers. How a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Sand M (2016) Responsibility and visioneering—opening Pandora’s box. NanoEthics 10(1):75–86
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):285–298
Konrad K (2006) The social dynamics of expectations. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):429–444
Simondon G (2009) Technical mentality. Parrhesia 7: 7–27
Esposito E (2011) The future of futures: the time of money in financing and society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
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
Nassehi A (1999) Differenzierungsfolgen. Beiträge zur Soziologie der Moderne. Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Luhmann N (1976) The future cannot begin: temporal structures in modern society. Soc Res 43:130–152
Geels F (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495–510
Levitas R (1990) The concept of utopia. Allan, New York
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickel, S., Schrape, JF. The Logic of Digital Utopianism. Nanoethics 11, 47–58 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0285-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0285-6