Our inquiry into
the ways ICTs change the nature of collective action in its various appearances
has led us to the conclusion that conventional hierarchical governance is competing
with new ways to distribute public goods and achieve collective outcomes. In this
last unit of the module, Livingston integrates what we have learned about the underlying
factors, forces, and mechanisms into a comprehensive image. It depicts how ICTs establish Castells’ “new communication
space“ (2007, p.238) and reconfigurate power structures in favor of an
institutionally less constrained society. Based on this, I would like to close
the circle and develop a theoretical perspective that builds on the insights we
have gained into electronically enabled global politics and relates to the
neo-realist considerations in the beginning of the module.
New Actors
Transforming time
and space and casting networks across the globe (Castells, 2011), ICTs raise
issues and problems on a global scale that cannot be dealt with by national
governments (Castells, 2007, p.258). As a result, the nation-state as the
principle form of social organization is superseded (Robinson, 1998, p.564) and
alternative modes of governance emerge. Dependent on the public good the
provide, they operate outside (e.g. knowledge through Wikipedia) or inside a
“shadow of hierarchy“ (infrastructure or security provided by contractors to
the state). While Börzel and Risse use their observations in areas of limited
statehood to argue for governance without government (2010, p.120), Livingston implies
that the nation-state will not vanish referring to Sen (1982), who limits that
possibility by pointing out that it is only the state that has the capacity to
provide public goods such as infrastructure or other resource-related services.
New actors qualify for governance as the nation-state does not have the
respective monopoly anymore.
New Public
Space
The emergence of
ICTs can be considered to be “a historical shift of the public sphere from the
institutional realm to the new communication space“, an electronically enabled
network space where private and collective interests are negotiated a society
is grounded in (Castells, 2007, pp.238/258). That new communication space is of
conflictive nature, as societies have diverse and contradictory values and
interests that merge and clash there and thus define its power relations (ibid.
p.239). Hence, states and non-state actors are in competition to shape the
power structures in the new public sphere according to their very own
interests. Rising mass self-communication (ibid., 248) of society’s “long tail“
(as discussed last week) enables everyone to pursue his own interests and aim
at changing values and interests, thus altering the prevailing power relations (ibid.,
p.249), regardless of contradictory preferences of others. So, as hierarchy
dwindles and the nation state gets absorbed by a plenticity of stakeholders,
each one in pursuit to alter the the public space’s power relations, i.e.
distribution of power, in his favor, we arrive at “the condition of meer
Nature, that is to say of absolute Liberty [...] and the condition of Warre“
(Hobbes, 1651, Ch.XXXI): a digital anarchy.
Any collective
outcome pursued, regardless if it is motivated by political or economical
calculation or by moral values, can only be achieved through a change in the
prevailing power relations, in opposition to those who are interested in
maintaining them. The precondition of such a successful placement of own
interests is a familiar one: in a condition of anarchy, “relative gain is more
important than absolute gain“ (Waltz, 1959, p.198). As Waltz put it for states,
“the closer the competition, the more strongly states seek relative gains
rather than absolute ones“ (ibid. p.xi).
A New Notion of
Power
Recalling our
first discussion, Na’ama raised the question if we should consider
technological capabilites as a new form of hard power. As we have seen above,
in a new public sphere characterized by mass self-communication of the “long
tail“, every one has a certain minimum of access to ICTs. Castells statement that
“power relations, in our social and technological context, are largely
dependent on the process of socialized communication“ (ibid., 240), thus points
out a shift of the meaning of power from technological capabilities to contents
and the way they are shared, as power depends on “socialized communication“.
Descriptive
empirical evidence can be found inter alia in Pedro’s examples of last week
(Zapatista Revoluion and Chilean education protests) as well as– of course – in
the Arab Spring. Both illustrations examplify the change of prevailing power
relations after social movements have gained relatively more than their
counter-part.
New Approach
At the end of
these considerations I come to conclude that
- Castells’ new public space in the communication
sphere can be perceived as a system of
digital
anarchy,
- this public space is contested and thus
determined by the power relations, i.e. distributions
of
power among its constituents, and that
- the dynamics of these power relations change as
actors gain relatively as compared to
their
competitors.
While these
processes parallel basic realist notions, ICTs clearly contrast the new public
space from a realist/neo-realist assessment of the traditional international
system as they
- have qualified a variety of stakeholders in the
public space as key actors in global
politics and
enqueued the state, which used to be the sole key actor in IR, and
- rely on a broader notion of “power“.
It is time to
adjust inherited realist/neo-realist principles to the social world as we have become
acquainted with it in our module and think about realism/neo-realism in
electronically enabled networks.
Benni
References:
Börzel, Tanja A., and Thomas Risse; 2010; Governance without a State: Can it Work?; in Regulation & Governance 4; pp. 113–134
Castells, Manuel;
2007; Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society, in:
International Journal of Communication 1; pp. 238-266
Castells, Manuel;
2011; The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy; Society
and Culture; Cambridge; Blackwell; accessed on 9 July 2012 via http://books.google.de/books?id=FihjywtjTdUC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Hobbes, Thomas;
1651; Leviathan or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth
Ecclesiastical and Civill; Printed for Andrew Crooke, at the Green Dragon in
St. Paul's Churchyard; accessed on 9 July 2012 via http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
Robinson, William
I.; 1998; Beyond Nation-State Paradigms: Globalization, Sociology, and the
Challenge of Transnational Studies; in Sociological Forum; Vol. 13; No. 4; pp.
561-594; accessed on 09 July 2012 via http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.queensu.ca/content/jhu5q40851312h03/fulltext.pdf
Sen, Armatya;
1982; Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlements and Deprivation; Alderley;
Clarendon Press
Waltz, Kenneth N.;
1959/2001; Man, the State, and War; New York; Columbia University Press;
accessed on 9 July 2012 via
http://books.google.de/books?id=qUsb210ml48C&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
