{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a","title":"Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age The Spirit of Networks","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9781349379743","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a","id":"8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a","uuid":"8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a","title":"Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age The Spirit of Networks","normalized_title":"mediaandnewcapitalisminthedigitalagethespiritofnetworks","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9781349379743","isbns":["9781349379743","9780230106062"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":258,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Media%20and%20New%20Capitalism%20in%20the%20Digital%20Age%20The%20Spirit%20of%20Networks","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/8a3d8546-8fbb-485e-b423-37bc08c3284a/search"},"page":{"printed_page":184,"pdf_page":185,"physical_index":185,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"08474ff83410c926694ea239cc9dcbdd5a16f9453fe7e120c9b82b05cc5e35e4"},"chapter":"Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age","content":"At the foundations of such cosmology is an answer to “the question concerning technology,” as Heidegger puts it (1977): what is technology, or, more sociologically speaking, what are the relations between technology and society? The answer—both in the social sciences and in public discourse— has overwhelmingly been that technology is the chief agent of social change, that is, that technology makes society (Murphie and Potts 2003, 11). This view—termed by Robins and Webster as “technologism” (1999), that is, making technology the axis of social explanation—makes three assumptions:\n\n1. Neutrality. Technology has a history of its own, and its development stems from an internal dynamic; in that sense, it is an asocial force, external to social power struggles. The development of technology is seen as stemming from an internal logic. Technology comes into being in a sphere external to society. This is a Machina ex Deus approach, which perceives technology to be the love child of technology, stemming from thin air or the otherwise nonsocial. The genius inventor, struggling in his (and, rarely, her) laboratory to come up with an invention—usually for the sake of innovation itself—is an epitome of that perception. According to that, in order to understand technology we need to adopt an “internalist” approach (Bijker 1995, 9–10), that is, we need to examine its minute technical details. Technology is fetishized (Robins and Webster 1999, 51–53) as a force completely autonomous from society (Webster 1991, 1). Since technologies are conceived as having their own autonomous functional logic they can therefore be explained and analyzed without reference to the “external,” or social factors (Feenberg 1995).\n\n2. Inevitability. Technology largely and unidirectionally determines the shape of society, reconfiguring it in accordance with its internal working; once a technology is presented and adopted by society, it generates an outcome, which is inscribed in the essence of that technology. It might not always be forecasted, but social change can always be traced back to technological factors. According to this proposition, technology is an autonomous entity (Winner 1977) that drives history (see Smith and Marx 1994). Thus, technology is perceived as a fait accomplis, something to which society has to adopt passively. The reaction to technology can only be conceived within a dichotomous framework of “love it or leave it” (Feenberg 1991).\n\n184\n\nMedia and New Capitalism in the Digital Age","previous_page":null,"next_page":185}