Untitled - socium.ge
Untitled - socium.ge Untitled - socium.ge
Informationalism and the network society 29nerve system of the global, informational, capitalist economy (Hutton andGiddens, 2000).Financial valuation determines the dynamics of the economy in the shortterm. But in the long run, everything depends on productivity growth. This iswhy the source of productivity constitutes the cornerstone of economicgrowth, and therefore of profits, wages, accumulation, and investment. Andthe key factor for productivity growth in this knowledge-intensive, networkedeconomy is innovation (Lucas, 1999). Innovation is the capacity to recombinefactors of production in a more efficient way, and/or produce higher valueadded in process or in product. Chapter 6 in this volume reminds us of thisbasic fact. Innovation depends on innovators. And innovators, as analyzed inchapter 2, depend on cultural creativity, on institutional openness to entrepreneurialism,on labor autonomy in the labor process, and on the adequatefinancing of this innovation-driven economy.The new economy of our time is certainly capitalist, but it is a new brandof capitalism. It depends on innovation as the source of productivity growth,on computer-networked global financial markets, whose criteria for valuationare influenced by information turbulences, on the networking of productionand management, internally and externally, locally and globally, and on laborthat is flexible and adaptable in all cases. The creators of value have to be selfprogrammable,and able to autonomously process information into specificknowledge. Generic workers, reduced to their role as underlings, must beready to adapt to the needs of the firm, or else face displacement by machinesor alternative labor forces.In this system, rather than exploitation in the traditional sense, the key issuefor labor is the differentiation between three categories: those who are thesource of innovation and value; those who merely carry out instructions; andwhose who are structurally irrelevant, either as workers (not enough education,living in areas without the proper infrastructure and institutional environmentfor global production) or as consumers (too poor to be part of themarket). For the mass of the world population their primary concern is how toavoid irrelevance, and, instead, to engage in a meaningful relationship, such asthe relationship we used to call exploitation. Because exploitation does have ameaning for the exploited. The danger is, rather, for those who become invisibleto the programs commanding the global networks of production, distribution,and valuation.Communication, Media, and the Public SpaceIn the realm of communication, the network society is characterized by apattern of networking, flexibility, the recombination of codes, and ephemeralsymbolic communication. This is a culture primarily organized around and
30 Manuel Castellsintegrated by a diversified system of electronic media, including the Internet.Cultural expressions of all kinds are enclosed and shaped by this interlinked,electronic hypertext, formed by television, radio, print media, film, video, art,and Internet communication in the so-called “multimedia system” (Croteauand Hoynes, 2000).This multimedia system, even in its current state of oligopolistic businessconcentration, is not characterized by one-way messages to a mass audience.This was the mass culture of the industrial society. Media in the network societypresent a large variety of channels of communication, with increasinginteractivity. And they do not constitute the global village of a unified,Hollywood-centered culture. They are inclusive of a wide range of culturesand social groups, and send targeted messages to selected audiences or tospecific moods of an audience. The media system is characterized by globalbusiness concentration, by diversification of the audience (including culturaldiversification), by technological versatility and channel multiplicity, and bythe growing autonomy of an audience that is equipped with the Internet andhas learned the rules of the game: namely, everything that is a collectivemental experience is virtual, but this virtuality is a fundamental dimension ofeverybody’s reality.The enclosure of communication in the space of flexible, interactive, electronichypertext has a decisive effect on politics. Media have become thepublic space (Volkmer, 2003). The Habermasian vision of the constitution anddemocratic political institutions as the common ground of society, or theChicago School vision (unwittingly revived by Henri Lefebvre and RichardSennett) of the city as the public space of communication and social integration,has faded away. The commons of society are made of electronicnetworks, be it the media inherited from the mass media age, but deeply transformedby digitalization, or the new communication systems built in andaround the Internet. This is not to say that cities disappear or that face-to-faceinteraction is a relic of the past. In fact, we observe the opposite trend: themore communication happens in the electronic space, the more people asserttheir own culture and experience in their localities (Borja, 2003).However, local experience remains fragmented, customized, individualized.The socialization of society – the construction of a shared cultural practicethat allows individuals and social groups to live together (even in aconflictive togetherness) – takes place nowadays in the networked, digitized,interactive space of communication, centered around mass media and theInternet. Thus, the relationship between citizens and politicians, between therepresented and the representative, depends essentially on what happens in thismedia-centered communication space. Not that the media dictate politics andpolicies. But it is in the media space that political battles of all kinds arefought, won, and lost. Here, again, media politics works, as other instances of
- Page 2: The Network Society
- Page 5 and 6: © Manuel Castells 2004All rights r
- Page 7 and 8: viContentsPART IV SOCIABILITY AND S
- Page 9 and 10: Figures2.1 Technological developmen
- Page 11 and 12: xTables13.4 Physician reports of th
- Page 13 and 14: xiiNotes on contributorsNathaniel B
- Page 15 and 16: xivNotes on contributorsand Browsin
- Page 17 and 18: AcknowledgmentsThis book is the res
- Page 19 and 20: xviiiEditor’s prefaceinteraction
- Page 21 and 22: xxEditor’s prefaceof socio-techni
- Page 24 and 25: 1. Informationalism, networks, and
- Page 26 and 27: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 28 and 29: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 30 and 31: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 32 and 33: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 34 and 35: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 36 and 37: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 38 and 39: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 40 and 41: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 42 and 43: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 44 and 45: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 46 and 47: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 48 and 49: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 52 and 53: the network society, in a binary mo
- Page 54 and 55: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 56 and 57: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 58 and 59: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 60 and 61: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 62 and 63: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 64 and 65: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 66: Informationalism and the network so
- Page 70 and 71: 2. Institutional models of the netw
- Page 72 and 73: Silicon Valley and Finland 51PATHS
- Page 74 and 75: Silicon Valley and Finland 53Table
- Page 76 and 77: Silicon Valley and Finland 55the fi
- Page 78 and 79: Silicon Valley and Finland 57There
- Page 80 and 81: Silicon Valley and Finland 59inform
- Page 82 and 83: Silicon Valley and Finland 61that I
- Page 84 and 85: Silicon Valley and Finland 63EBay,
- Page 86 and 87: Silicon Valley and Finland 65produc
- Page 88 and 89: wholly devoted to, or dependent on,
- Page 90 and 91: Silicon Valley and Finland 69The st
- Page 92 and 93: Silicon Valley and Finland 71JOT Au
- Page 94 and 95: Silicon Valley and Finland 73risk i
- Page 96 and 97: Silicon Valley and Finland 75respec
- Page 98 and 99: Silicon Valley and Finland 77esting
30 Manuel Castellsintegrated by a diversified system of electronic media, including the Internet.Cultural expressions of all kinds are enclosed and shaped by this interlinked,electronic hypertext, formed by television, radio, print media, film, video, art,and Internet communication in the so-called “multimedia system” (Croteauand Hoynes, 2000).This multimedia system, even in its current state of oligopolistic businessconcentration, is not characterized by one-way messa<strong>ge</strong>s to a mass audience.This was the mass culture of the industrial society. Media in the network societypresent a lar<strong>ge</strong> variety of channels of communication, with increasinginteractivity. And they do not constitute the global villa<strong>ge</strong> of a unified,Hollywood-centered culture. They are inclusive of a wide ran<strong>ge</strong> of culturesand social groups, and send tar<strong>ge</strong>ted messa<strong>ge</strong>s to selected audiences or tospecific moods of an audience. The media system is characterized by globalbusiness concentration, by diversification of the audience (including culturaldiversification), by technological versatility and channel multiplicity, and bythe growing autonomy of an audience that is equipped with the Internet andhas learned the rules of the game: namely, everything that is a collectivemental experience is virtual, but this virtuality is a fundamental dimension ofeverybody’s reality.The enclosure of communication in the space of flexible, interactive, electronichypertext has a decisive effect on politics. Media have become thepublic space (Volkmer, 2003). The Habermasian vision of the constitution anddemocratic political institutions as the common ground of society, or theChicago School vision (unwittingly revived by Henri Lefebvre and RichardSennett) of the city as the public space of communication and social integration,has faded away. The commons of society are made of electronicnetworks, be it the media inherited from the mass media a<strong>ge</strong>, but deeply transformedby digitalization, or the new communication systems built in andaround the Internet. This is not to say that cities disappear or that face-to-faceinteraction is a relic of the past. In fact, we observe the opposite trend: themore communication happens in the electronic space, the more people asserttheir own culture and experience in their localities (Borja, 2003).However, local experience remains fragmented, customized, individualized.The socialization of society – the construction of a shared cultural practicethat allows individuals and social groups to live to<strong>ge</strong>ther (even in aconflictive to<strong>ge</strong>therness) – takes place nowadays in the networked, digitized,interactive space of communication, centered around mass media and theInternet. Thus, the relationship between citizens and politicians, between therepresented and the representative, depends essentially on what happens in thismedia-centered communication space. Not that the media dictate politics andpolicies. But it is in the media space that political battles of all kinds arefought, won, and lost. Here, again, media politics works, as other instances of
Change language