Manuel Castells at LSE – Mass Self-Communication

Manuel Castells (Flickr user uscpublicdiplomacy)

Manuel Castells (Flickr user uscpublicdiplomacy)

What do the MP expenses scandal and the protests in Iran have in common? Both of them reflect how communication power can change the world – or rather, change the way we see it – says Manuel Castells.

I had the opportunity to listen to most of Manuel Castells’ public lecture at the LSE tonight. Manuel Castells has recently been the most influential scholar on the subject of communication and technology, announcing the arrival of the “network society” (one of his strengths is finding sticky labels for what he studies, as tonight’s lecture proved again).

Here’s his argument in a nutshell.

For the masses, by the masses

Power is one of the most important topics in any society, as we might all agree. For Castells, one of the most important powers is to “control human minds” and to shape meanings.

The media immediately come to mind as probably the most powerful institution to shape the way we see the world. And we need to understand that the media are mainly big business, says Castells. Globalized, decentralized, but actually highly concentrated business.

And then we got “mass self-communication” nowadays (one of those new sticky labels you should watch out for). Horizontal, many-to-many forms of communication such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, you name them.

As you can imagine, big media and mass self-communication don’t just peacefully coexist. They interact – somehow, sometimes, somewhere. Castells left it at that during his lecture.

Scandal politics

So far, Castells didn’t really say anything new (although he once again managed to present these points more clearly than you will find them anywhere). The real question was, how does mass self-communication change the distribution of communication power?

To answer this, he first went on to criticize big media for their focus on scandals when reporting politics. In fact, he argues that the media are running a “scandal industry” based on leaked, remixed, half-true information and semi-legal but definitely unethical investigation methods (see phone tapping case in today’s papers). Politicians must play along because they see undermining the opponent’s character as the only reliable political weapon.

Interestingly, there is no conclusive evidence, says Castells, that discrediting your political opponent always pays off. To the contrary, in several cases, it had a negative effect.

More importantly, scandal politics cause massive damage for the entire political system by undermining it’s legitimacy. That is why the vast majority of people around the world believes that democracy is failing and that they are not governed by “the people” (always an exception: Scandinavia). And when mistrust in the political system is met by mistrust in the economic system, we’re in big trouble.

The way out

So too much communication power in the hands of big media is really bad. But can mass self-communication make a difference?

Castells believes it can and it already does. His arguments are pretty well-known though, I must say. The services and technologies facilitating mass self-communication are much harder to control from top down, offer a much wider spectrum of opinion and information, by-pass any corporate or editorial control, and feature close to no entry costs. In other words, mass self-communication is autonomous.

This has already made a huge difference in politics, argues Castells. The success of social movements over the last 15 years would not have been possible without mass self-communication.When these movements go online, they form “instant political communities of practice” (another of those sticky labels).

For example, we don’t know much more about climate change than we did some 30 years ago. However, the Internet has spread the word so that 85% of the world population has now joined the global environmental movement. Another case in point would be the protests in Iran.

Early exit

Unfortunately, I had to leave at this point. Until then, Castells had argued that mass self-communication offers an alternative way through which we can see the world and make sense of it – outside any big media with all its scandals.

I had two major problems with his argument up until this point. (Maybe they were mentioned in the Q&A session?)

First, I really question the autonomy of mass self-communication. It has to rely on services which cost billions a year and which are operated by equally big business (News Corp. owns MySpace, etc.). There’s a lot to say about concentration and commercialization on the internet.

Second, I don’t quite see why mass self-communication should be any less susceptible to scandals. In fact, doesn’t it allow them to spread even fast, even more uncontrollably, possibly even more unethical?

I would love to hear your comments and maybe some notes on the last few minutes of Castells’s lecture. Thank you!

14 responses to “Manuel Castells at LSE – Mass Self-Communication

  1. Thank you for posting this. I’m currently writing a paper about the contention over the way Google Buzz was introduced in relations to conceptions of online democracy. The term autonomy in relation to mass-“self”communication is clearly an entry for critique. Appearently corporations (Google) that facilitate mass-self communication are action in a way, which problematises the autonomy in mass-self communication that he advocates, becomes more powerfull, by indeed making the network more uncontrollable and unethical, considering privacy concerns!

  2. I wrote this post a while ago, but since then I’ve become even more critical of the bottom-up, decentralized nature of communication environments like Facebook and such – at least as far as the overall architecture and control of these environments is concerned.

    There’s clearly this trend evolving that big corporations can define and control these communication environments according to their (corporate) needs. The same applies to the AppStore – third parties can develop apps, but only as long as they stick to Apple’s rules.

    Good luck with your paper. Would be interested to read it when you’re done.

  3. Pingback: The Fallacy of Social Media « Symbolic Exchanges

  4. Pingback: Mass-Self Communication at LSE by Manuel Castells « Κοινωνιολογία της Πολιτικής Ι

  5. Pingback: Russia: 11 Areas of Election-Related ICT Innovation · Global Voices

  6. Pingback: Russia: 11 Areas of Election-Related ICT Innovation :: Elites TV

  7. Pingback: Official Russia | Russia: 11 Areas of Election-Related ICT Innovation

  8. Pingback: Russia: 11 Areas of Election-Related ICT Innovation | SNID- Master in Social Networks Influence Design

  9. Pingback: 11 Areas of Election-Related Innovation in Russia » OWNI.eu, News, Augmented

  10. Pingback: 11 Areas of Election-Related Innovation in Russia | CESPRI 11 Areas of Election-Related Innovation in Russia | Centrul de Studii Politice si Relatii Internationale

  11. Pingback: Social Media and Male Grooming « The Cycling Feminist

  12. We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme
    in our community. Your website provided us with valuable info to work on.

    You’ve done a formidable job and our entire community will be thankful to you.

  13. For a better understanding of the tehory of the network society I have published a diagramm of the social structure of the network society. http://digitalrealism.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/model-of-the-network-society-castells/

  14. Pingback: Why Weird Twitter | Ethnography Matters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s