The Communication Review

ISSN: 1071-4421 (Print) 1547-7487 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcrv20

Alternative Media and Social Networking Sites: The

Politics of Individuation and Political Participation

Natalie Fenton & Veronica Barassi

To cite this article: Natalie Fenton & Veronica Barassi (2011) Alternative Media and Social
Networking Sites: The Politics of Individuation and Political Participation, The Communication
Review, 14:3, 179-196, DOI: 10.1080/10714421.2011.597245

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597245

Published online: 09 Sep 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3982

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcrv20

Download by: [Nat and Kapodistran University of Athens] Date: 04 May 2017, At: 09:24
The Communication Review, 14:179196, 2011
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1071-4421 print/1547-7487 online
DOI: 10.1080/10714421.2011.597245

Alternative Media and Social Networking Sites:

The Politics of Individuation and
Political Participation

NATALIE FENTON
Department of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross,
London, United Kingdom

VERONICA BARASSI
Institute of Contemporary European Studies, European Business School,
Regents College London, London, United Kingdom

The rapid growth in usage of social networking sites begs a

reconsideration of the meaning of mediated political participation
in society. Castells (2009) contended that social networking sites
offer a form of mass communication of the self wherein individ-
uals can acquire a new creative autonomy. Stiegler (2009) and
the Ars Industrialis collective believe that the processes of indi-
viduation, and of speaking out, hold the key to empowerment,
agency, and resistance. In this article the authors offer a criti-
cal reflection on the logic of mediated participation promoted by
social media through a consideration of the differences between
individual and collective forms of mediated political participation.
Drawing on ethnographic research on alternative media within
the Trade Union Movement in Britain and recent research on the
political culture of social networking sites, the authors argue that
far from being empowering, the logic of self-centered participa-
tion promoted by social media can represent a threat for political
groups rather than an opportunity.

With the explosion of digital media has come the extension of social media
platforms into the lives of many who are technologically privileged and
networked to the new communications environment. This new practice of
mediated sociality (Sassen, 2004) has also brought with it several claims for

Address correspondence to Natalie Fenton, Department of Media and Communications,

Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, United Kingdom. E-mail:
[email protected]

179
180 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

the transformation of relations between citizenship and the media and the
facilitation of new forms of political participation as well as a new means
of imagining our political futures. As campaign organizations and political
parties have started to turn their attention to social networking sites, we
find ourselves at a critical juncture in which the interrogation of the nature
of political participation on offer through social media practices becomes
paramount if we are to fully understand and critique the broader claims
made for the transformation of political participation in society.
In the social sciences, there is much disagreement on the political pos-
sibilities offered by social media. Some scholars argue that Web 2.0 and
especially social networking sites can enable new political and creative
possibilities functioning at once as sites of democratic engagement and
mass collaboration, while also offering individual autonomy (Castells, 2009;
Ellison, Lampe, & Steinfield, 2009; Erkul & Kes-Erkul, 2009; Shirky, 2008;
Stiegler, 2008a). Others have shown that through a politics of disposses-
sion of personal data and corporate exploitation, social networking sites
entrap individual creativity within private platforms that subject it to cor-
porate control, surveillance, and the exploitation of users immaterial labor
(Andrejevic, 2004, 2005; Fuchs, 2009a, 2009b; Jarrett, 2008; Roberts, 2009;
Terranova, 2000; Van Dijck, 2009; Zimmer, 2008).
In this article, we argue that debates on the democratic potential of
social networking sites have often been constrained by a focus on individ-
ual agency, and by the assumption that, through individual participation and
a realization of the politics of the self, people will connect to wider move-
ments where significant political transformations and social change can take
place (Castells, 2009; Stiegler, 2008). However, by focusing on individual
agency, we argue, current research on social media has overlooked how
Web 2.0 technologies and processes also affect the internal politics of col-
lective groups, and how the self-centered forms of communication that these
platforms enable can challenge rather than reinforce the collective creativity
of social movements.
Bringing together recent research on the political culture of social net-
working sites with ethnographic research in the British Labour movement,
we contend that to understand the political possibilities offered by social
media, it is important to critically address the concept of participation and
uncover its meaning in different and often opposing media contexts. We
argue that different media practices enable different forms of participation.
Within social movements, the production of alternative media1 is based on

1
The concept of alternative media is complex and the subject of much debate. Many scholars
have opposed the idea that it is possible to group together different types of grassroots media under a
unique concept such as alternative media. A wide variety of different terms have been applied to the
understanding of media forms produced by groups of individuals that operate at a grassroots level. To
bring together these understandings, Hadl (2009) provided an efficient summary of the most prominent
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 181

collective rituals and on the collective construction of political messages,

whereas social networking practices are linked to processes of individuation
and autonomy. When the two come together, as in radical oppositional polit-
ical campaigns run by grassroots groups whose collective identity is linked
to a particular form of news sheet or magazine (be it online or offline) but
who also use social networking for campaign building, then these forms of
mediated political participation often exist in a relationship of tension. This
is because self-centered media production practices, which are promoted by
social media, represent a challenge to the construction and dissemination
of political messages that are born out of the efforts and negotiations of a
collective. We argue that a critical analysis of this tension between different
media practices leads to an appreciation of the inequalities of power that
are embedded in the concept of social participation that is often promoted
by the digital economy (Sandoval & Fuchs, 2009).

Social Media and Political Participation: The Possibilities of Web 2.0

Social media are increasingly part of contemporary campaign practice. In
recent years, there have been a wide variety of examples of how social
networking sites have facilitated the growth and extension of grassroots
movements (Schulz, 2008) or how they have boosted citizens engagement
in electoral campaigns (Castells, 2009, pp. 346364; Erkul & Kes-Erkul,
2009; Metzgar & Maruggi, 2009). Many of these examples foster the logic
of interactivity and user engagement that works alongside and in associ-
ation with mainstream media. The purpose is often not to remain within
the enclaves of social media sites but to gain mainstream coverage and
infiltrate all media channels as the viral communication spreads. In this
manner, social media platforms enable new ways in which to think and act
political engagementways that facilitate political participation and mobi-
lize grassroots groups or individuals against common goals. Social media
blur and cross over into mainstream media just as, in a similar process,
the creative autonomy of the individual combines with political intent of
the collective. The combination of creative autonomy with political intent is
claimed (Castells, 2009; Stiegler, 2008) to offer up a form of political indi-
viduation that is radicalizing and that can empower individuals and promote
social change.
This understanding is exemplified in the work of the philosopher
Bernard Stiegler and in the manifesto of the Ars Industrials collective
(International Association for an Industrial Politics of Technology of the

existing approaches to alternative media. In this article, we use the concept of alternative media, drawing
especially on the insights of Downing (2001) and Atton (2002), to refer to the production of small scale
media that are linked to the realities of social movements (but not exclusively), and that are defined by
collective practices of participatory communication within a given group.
182 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

Self). Founded in 2005 by Stiegler and other art critics, The Ars Industrials
collective (http://www.arsindustrialis.org/node/1472) is grounded in the
belief that, in contemporary societies, the life of the mind (Arendt, cited
in Stiegler, 2006, para. 1) is under threat of being entirely subjected to the
law of the market, of the cultural industries, and of the digital economy. In
this context, the aim of the collective is to divert the use of technologies
as instruments of control in order to empower individuals to develop their
own ecology of the spirit, which is achieved through the self (Steigler,
2006, para. 2).
In the design and conception of its artistic and political manifesto, the
Ars Industrialis collective strongly relies on Stieglers (2008) theory on the
importance of individuation in society, and on the central role played by
new technologies in this process. Stiegler believes that individuation is made
possibleamong other thingsby the act of speaking out (2008, p. 37).
This is because by speaking for oneself the individual is able to establish
his or her singularity (2009, p. 35) with reference to a collective. Without
dwelling on the philosophical complexities of Stieglers argument, in this arti-
cle we focus on the claims he made regarding the difference between mass
media and social media. According to Stiegler, mass media and advertising
destroy the interlocution made by language and are responsible for pro-
cesses of disindividuation (Stiegler, 2006). In his formulation, within mass
communication, individuals become addressees without being addressors
(2008, p. 38); they are not allowed to speak out and establish themselves
as singular beings. On the contrary, Stiegler believed that social network-
ing sites constitute absolutely original processes of psychical and collective
individuation (2008, p. 48). For him, social media are the spaces for the
construction of a digital singularity; a process thatalthough at times can be
seen as a narcissistic process (2008, p. 42)can lead to the growth of radical
and creative alternatives (Venn, Boyne, Phillips, & Bishop, 2007, 2009).
If Stiegler spoke of individuation in relation to social media, Castells
(2009) referred to the concept of creative autonomy (2009, p. 136).
According to Castells, with the development of Web 2.0 platforms, there is
currently a historical transformation of communication practices, with con-
siderable consequences for social organization and cultural change. Castells
contended that with the extension of Web 2.0 technologies, a new form
of communication has emerged: the mass communication of the self
(2009, pp. 5371). This form of communication is made possible particu-
larly through social media platforms where self-generated messages created
by individuals have the possibility of reaching global audiences (and hence
are a form of mass communication). In analyzing this new form of com-
munication, Castells referred to Ecos idea of the creative audience (2009,
p. 127), and contended that with the development of Web 2.0 platforms,
the potential for the audience to take charge of its communicative practices
has increased, giving rise to unprecedented levels of autonomy. Despite
maintaining a more dialectical and less techno-deterministic approach than
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 183

Stiegler, Castells, similar to Stiegler, strongly believed that self-expression

through social media platforms can act as a tool of resistance maintain-
ing that . . . the construction of communicative autonomy is directly related
to the development of social and political autonomy, a key factor in fostering
social change (2009, p. 414).
On one level, Castells and Stiegler seem to be right: Through the mass
communication of the self, social media enable the participation of citizens
in politically significant ways. However, it is important to further critique
the nature of participation that is heralded as promoting social change. In
this context, it is appropriate to ask the question, Participation for whom
and for what purpose? Castells (2009) and Stiegler (2009) chose to focus
on an approach that prioritizes the importance of self expression that orig-
inates from an individual formulation and act. Castells referred to creative
autonomy, Stiegler talked about the power of individuation. In both circum-
stances, political participation is construed through the role of the individual.
The individual subject is asked to develop new techniques of the self to
resist the dominant hegemony (Stiegler, 2009) or is encouraged to mobilize
in favor of political issues or is persuaded to get involved in the debates that
precede political elections (Castells, 2009). Whereas we would not want to
deny that individual political subjectivity is central to political engagement,
political participation is frequently defined by and takes place in relation to
and in coordination with others. Foregrounding creative autonomy and the
power of individuation may well be appropriate analytical tools for social
media, but to do so negates the collective dimension of political partici-
pation and thereby dissipates the political properties of the participatory
communicative act itself.
This article contends that in assessing the political potential of social
media it is important to consider the differences and relations between indi-
vidual and collective forms of mediated political participation. As it will be
shown in the next part of the article, far from being empowering, the logic of
self-centered participation promoted by social media can represent a threat
for political groups rather than an opportunity. Drawing upon ethnographic
research within the Cuba Solidarity Campaign (CSC), an international soli-
darity campaigning organization closely linked to the Labour Movement in
the United Kingdom, we show that self-centered media production practices
promoted by social media can represent a challenge to the construction
and dissemination of political messages that are born out of the efforts
and negotiations of a collective. These reflections trigger important ques-
tions concerning the political culture of social media, and the ideological
discourses of social participation that they promote.

Social Media an Ethnographic Approach

The data presented here are the product of a year of ethnographic field-
work within the CSC. The Labour Movement in Britain is constructed by the
184 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

political and economic exchanges between many different, albeit broadly

left-wing organizations including the main trade unions, single issue cam-
paigns (e.g. Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), left-wing publications
(e.g. Morning Star, Tribune), political parties (e.g. Labour Party, Communist
Party), international solidarity campaigns (e.g. Palestine Solidarity, Cuba
Solidarity), and many other political entities and grassroots organizations.
The CSC, previously known as British Cuba Research Centre, was
founded in 1978, out of a group of left-wing activists who were interested
in Cubas political situation and sought to inform the British public on the
positive reforms brought forward by the Socialist Government, especially in
terms of public health and education. Today, consisting of 4,000 individual
members, 450 trade union branches affiliates, 28 local groups on national ter-
ritory, and two sister organizations in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the CSC
has become the leading political organization in Britain with a focus on Cuba
and Latin America. The headquarters of CSC are based in North London, and
although the organization was born as a grassroots group based on volun-
teer contributions, it counts today 5 full-time staff, 25 executive committee
members, and around 10 volunteers.
The 1-year-long ethnographic project involved volunteering on a daily
basis in the national office of the CSC, participating in trade union con-
ferences and events, and following CSC members and organizers to social
gatherings and activities in a variety of different ethnographic spaces
(Marcus, 1998). Participant observation and informal conversations, there-
fore, were the principal methodologies, which provided the research with
a thorough understanding of the social world of CSC, and its internal con-
flicts, practices, and beliefs. The ethnographic analysis was also enriched
with qualitative textual analysis of the online and offline media that the CSC
and its networked organizations produced, and 37 audiorecorded interviews
lasting 1 hour each. Interviews focused on a life history approach, which
provided the research with an historical dimension that is often missing
from participant observation (Dewalt, 2002).
Within the CSC, activists rely on a variety of different and converging
(old and new) media platforms. Of the many media platforms that define the
production of information within the campaign the CubaS magazine is the
oldest, and remains the most important. Today the organization publishes
between 5,000 and 6,000 copies quarterly, which are then distributed freely
to all members and affiliated organizations, as well as to key figures in the
Labour movement. The magazine is also sold for 2.00 to the general public
at conferences and events, or for 0.75 to all local groups who wish to sell
it at their own meetings. Alongside its printed media, the CSC also relies
on a variety of different online platforms, which include an HTML web-
site, an e-mail newsletter, and different social media accounts on Facebook
(1,360 members), on YouTube, and on Twitter (260 followers).
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 185

Fieldwork was undertaken between the beginning of 2007 and 2008, at

a time of profound transformation for the trade union movement, which was
defined by a sense of disillusion toward the politics of New Labour. This was
also a time in which social networking sites were starting to become impor-
tant tools for political campaigning and action. One particular advantage
of ethnographic research on the media, is that it enables scholars to place
media forms and practices in context, and consider the human tensions,
negotiations and beliefs that are embedded in the everyday interaction with
media technologies. As we subsequently reveal, ethnographic research can
provide many important insights that can enable a deeper understanding of
social media and of their political potential, and encourage scholars to dis-
tance themselves from techno-deterministic assumptions of their effects. This
is because, once we consider the everyday struggles, fears and problems that
activists face in the promotion of their messages via Web 2.0 platforms, it is
clear that there are many elements that need to be taken into account when
eulogizing about the emancipatory qualities of these new technologies.

Social Media and the Problem of the Politics of Individuation:

Reflections from the CSC in Britain
Toward the end of 2007, the CSC started to take the first steps in the world
of social media, by creating a YouTube account, opening a Facebook group,
and creating a profile on Twitter. For the people involved, it was extremely
important to secure a presence on social networking sites because they were
felt to offer the organization an unprecedented opportunity, namely, the
possibility of spreading the message within individual networks of commu-
nication, and maximizing the role of individual members. This is illustrated
in an interview with Catriona, a 22-year-old executive committee member
who was in charge of setting up the Facebook group.

C: . . . its very important to have a presence on Facebook and other

social networking sites, as we have to tap into the possibilities of tech-
nology, both to improve communication with current members, and
to potentially attract new ones. One disadvantage is that many people
dont pay much attention to messages they get on Facebook, as they get
overloaded. However, promoting specific campaigns or events through
Facebook is important because you can rely on individual networks of
communication, which was not possible before.

As soon as CSC opened its social media accounts, organizers started to

link the content that they published on social media with the one published
on other media platforms (e.g. the website, the e-mail newsletter, and the
CubaS magazine) through a process of repetition and intertextuality, which
maximized the reach of the campaigns message. By bringing forward the
186 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

example of Cuba, CSCs aim is to provide a critique of the neoliberal system

in Britain through the example of Cuba. The intention of the campaign is
not to propose that Britain should undergo a socialist revolution, but to
highlight how state interventionand the limitations of corporate power
can lead to important civic transformations. Therefore, from the beginning,
in the CSC social media platforms were understood as important tools of
political action because they enabled organizers and activists to spread their
message through a different channel of communication; one that was created
by individuals and their relationships, and that was strengthened by word of
mouth through the sharing of links and posts.
At the end of 2007, although some within CSC believed that it was
important to start taking full advantage of social media platforms, many
were concerned that focusing on social networking sites as tools of political
action would have a negative effect on their campaigning strategies. This
is expressed vividly in a joint interview with two members of CSC: Matt,
who worked for the Venezuela Information Centre and at the time of the
interview was 24 years old, and his girlfriend Sian, who at the time of the
interview was 23 years old and worked as a researcher for the trade union
AMICUS, which merged with TGWU (Transport and General Workers Union)
in late 2007 to form UNITE:

S: I think it is noticeable in the last years, amongst the different cam-

paigns and the Trade Unions, things have changed. Today people think
that having a Facebook group is a level of political activity, and they con-
centrate on online media action a lot. But then things are deteriorating.
Members start to think that merely joining a Facebook group shows that
you are committed. But actually it doesnt mean anything . . . it doesnt
change things. There is too much information around, to be effective.
M: You are right, but I think its also useful . . .
S: I mean its useful in terms of advertising and promoting what we
do. But you also want lobbying, you want demonstrations, you want
protests. Facebook and other online spaces are useful in terms of pro-
moting these activities, but cannot be perceived as a substitute. But thats
whats happening now . . .
M: That is a problem. I think its a matter of balance. You know blogs
are important, and they are important in society, but then people end up
working just on blogs. And thats so individualistic. Since there are lots
of negative things on Cuba and Venezuela in the press, it is obvious that
for us the social networks and online action in general becomes more
important. But if people concentrate only on the information side of
things, they dont really get involved in lobbying, demonstrating, getting
engaged or actively changing peoples minds.

The frustration expressed by Matt and Sian in their interview was

shared by many others within the campaign as they believed that political
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 187

participation on social networking sites distorted peoples understanding of

collective action, by reinforcing the idea that simply joining a Facebook
Group was enough. However, during fieldwork, it emerged thatas Matt
briefly mentionedthe real problem of social networking sites is that they
are too individualistic.
Within CSC and other networked organizations, people felt frustrated
with the individualistic logic of social media and other online practices. This
is because according to many, in an era of blogs, individual websites, and
social networking sites, individual messages are often given the same impor-
tance as the messages that have arisen out of the tensions and negotiations of
a collective of people. In this contextsuffocated by the information over-
load of the online spacethe messages produced by oppositional groups,
which are the product of negotiations and conflicts, get lost. This situation is
making them question the idea that online platforms, and especially social
media, create a space in which the collective voice of oppositional groups
can be heard. One day, for example, the director of CSC was reflecting on
the campaigns online and social media practices and added: We try our
best. But what should we do when the message of a single 11-year-old can
achieve a greater importance than our own?
The understanding of the way in which people within CSC feel threat-
ened by the individualistic logic of social media, enables us to better
appreciate one paradoxical element that can be found in their social media
practices; namely their rejection of interactivity. In fact, during fieldwork it
emerged that CSC organizers believed that unmediated interactivity on social
media platforms from individual members (and nonmembers) represented
a direct challenge to the efforts of the campaign in constructing a coherent
and positive message about Cuba, which would enable people to reflect on
the negative aspects of a neoliberal government in Britain. It is important to
note that it was also felt to challenge the construction of a collective sym-
bolic identity within the group. This challenge could only be met through
the constant and resource intensive process of interactive discussion and
deliberation that was simply too big an undertaking for a small organization
such as CSC.
Consequently, when the CSC opened its YouTube account, the national
office of CSC chose not to allow others to post comments beneath their
videos. As Tashathe communication officer of the campaignexplained,
the choice of not allowing people to post comments on their YouTube
account was not motivated by a will to be undemocratic, but by the fact
that they simply couldnt afford interactivity. This is because, according
to Tasha, CSC did not have the resources to reply to individual messages
that appeared beneath their videos. This was considered to be a real prob-
lem for the campaign because often individual messages would constitute a
challenge to the one of the organization but the lack of time and resources
prevented organizers from engaging with such discussions.
188 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

Alternative Media as Collective Spaces of Political Participation

One simple yet critical conclusion that emerges from the ethnographic con-
text of CSC and enables us to critically reflect on the notions of political
participation promoted by social media platforms, is defined by the finding
that according to activists different media practices enable different forms of
mediated political participation and that these forms of political participation
do not sit easily with each other. Rather, they coexist in a relationship of ten-
sion, which affects the felt experience of political involvement. While CSC
organizers and activists believed that social media were problematic tools
of political action because of their self-centered logic, they also believed
that their alternative mediasuch as their printed magazine, website, and
newsletterwere instead spaces for the construction of a collective voice.
This is because through the production of these media formats people
found themselves collectively involved in the construction of a shared image
of the group.
The construction and negotiation of collective images (within or outside
of media platforms) is a central process for the development of collective
action. As scholars engaged in the study of social movements or alterna-
tive media have shown, communication practices and the construction of
collective discourses are often central to the creation of and consolidation
of political groups (Atton, 2002; Della Porta & Diani, 1999; Downing, 2001;
Melucci, 1996). In the context of the CSC, their magazinethe CubaS
represents a space for identification with a collective project. Since its origin
in 1986, the magazine has always been central to the campaign, and its
development as an organization. Members, organizers and volunteers often
attach collective memories to the production processes and technological
development of the CubaS . The magazine is a central component in the
symbolic construction of the organization, because it represents the way in
which the CSC has developed, and the way identity is bestowed upon the
organization by its members.
Throughout the ethnographic research, therefore, much data has been
gathered on the strong emotional attachment between people and their
magazine. One expression of this emotional attachment can be found in
an interview with Catriona the administrator of CSCs Facebook group.
Catrionas family has been involved with the campaign since she was 5 years
old, and during our semi-structured interview, she relayed the meaning the
CubaS magazine had for her:

C: I wouldnt imagine the campaign without the magazine. We need

it to know what is going on. Without the CubaS I couldnt imagine
how people would keep in touch with the organisation. If someone did
something to the CubaS I would be very, very angry. You know the
CubaS represents the collective effort of people who struggle for what
they believe in . . . and you cant destroy it.
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 189

Here it is important to point out that the construction of a collective

image through alternative media production is a complex process for the
campaign, because it involves internal conflict, deliberation, and negotiation
within the group. Although it is ultimately the decision of certain key mem-
bers of staff the process of reaching a decision is one of seeking consensus
and of managing contention. It is a process that suppresses individual and
minority voices, and for this reason needs to be understood in relation to
the inevitable power issues that it generates. Despite few internal tensions
overall, however, the magazine and other alternative media platforms are
felt to convey, in contrast with social networking sites, the collective politi-
cal ethos of the campaign, to provide a framework for its practice, and are
understood as important collective documents of its historical formation.
These later points emerge in an interview with Luke,2 a long-time
member of the campaign who at the time of fieldwork was in his early 40s:

L: Everything the campaign has done is reflected in our magazine, and

I wouldnt imagine CSC without the CubaS . I think the magazine is a
written version of CSC, it is a written record of what we have done in
the years. But perhaps the most important aspect of the magazine goes
beyond the focus on Cuba itself, because the CubaS can be perceived
as an archive of our movement, and the progression we have made. You
know campaigns come and go, and I think keeping track of them is
good for the labour movement and the progressive politics in the UK,
and our media enable us to do this.

Therefore, by highlighting the difference between mediated political partic-

ipation on social media and alternative media platforms, the ethnographic
context of CSC raises several questions relating to political identity, politi-
cal participation, and contemporary forms of mediation. It speaks both to
the changing nature of oppositional, grassroots organizations in the United
Kingdom and the ways in which social media are challenging the often
problematic power structures of groups that have functioned in relatively
enclosed contexts where forms of democratic decision making are frequently
far from perfect. However, it also reveals that the logic of political empow-
erment through self-centered participation as foregrounded by Castells and
Stiegler and promoted by social media, can represent a threat for politi-
cal collectivity rather than an opportunity for political becoming through
the process of individuation. Part of the problem resides in the automatic
syllogism that sees social media as enabling creative autonomy; creative
autonomy as a positive democratic process, and thus social media as sites
of transformation and social change. In contrast with these conclusions, we
believe that it is pivotal to ask when are social media concerned primarily

2
Fictional name in respect to the choice of anonymity of the interviewee.
190 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

with the narratives of the self and forms of self-representation that remain
firmly within the bounds of individualism and when, do they enter the ter-
ritory of political realization through acts of creative autonomy? What does
social and or political participation mean in these various contexts?

Web 2.0 and the Powerful Discourses of Individualism

The ethnographic context of CSC shows that social media can be com-
plex tools for political engagement and collective action. It also shows that
techno-optimistic perspectives, which understand these new technologies
merely as empowering tools for social movements, seem to be making sev-
eral assumptions regarding the nature of contemporary political participation
in a digital world, which need to be critically addressed. First, they assume
that individual participation in the creation and dissemination of symbolic
productions, the politics of the self, is the premise upon which all other polit-
ical acts are based. This form of political individualism not only denigrates
the collective creativity of politics it also presumes a level of significance
for social media that is, at the very least, open to question. In a world of
communicative abundance, putting ones political faith in the ability of indi-
vidual instances of communicative experience, albeit in a networked form,
to deliver social and political change, is a dubious practice. Castells (2009)
argued that in mass self communication traditional forms of access control
do not apply, and that today anyone can upload a video to the Internet,
write a blog, start a chat forum, or create an e-mail list. Access in this case
is the norm and blocking Internet access is the exception. This may be true,
but although people can produce and diffuse information easily in princi-
ple with the help of the Internet, not all information is visible to the same
degree and gets the same attention. The Internet presents a constant stream
of texts, images, and sound leaving the user to make sense of it all. This is
no small task. Even accepting that social media engenders a form of self-
communication that is expressive and creative; self-communication to a mass
audience is still the individual trying to be heard above the organization; still
the small organization trying to shout louder than the large organization. A
small organization such as the CSC, lacking the resources to commit to the
constant monitoring and feeding of the Internet, stands little chance of ris-
ing to the top of the Google hierarchy. Social media cannot escape, and
indeed are part of, the stratified online eyeball economy. In this economy,
the traditional and the mainstream are still dominant. Mainstream news and
information sites still attract the most traffic just as certain celebrities and
elites generate the largest networks (Hindman, 2009).
Second, there is a distinct under emphasis on the actual use to which
social networking is put. What Stiegler called an economy of contribution
(2008b) a digital world where the contributor is neither a consumer nor a
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 191

producer; a world that is intrinsically social and instinctively collaborative is

said to open up the mind to radically alternative possibilities. The claims to
self-realization through social media means that in an environment where
representative democracy is failing, citizens retreat to the private sphere and
a means of communicating that they feel they have more control over. This is
argued not to be indicative of a lack of political interest but rather to signal a
relocation of that interest to domains that are more intimate. This is resonant
of Sennetts (1974) argument that dead public space (public space that may
be visible but is no longer collective) is one reason why people seek out
on intimate terrain what is denied them on more alien ground (1974, p. 15).
However, if participation in this intimate terrain is built on mutual privatism,
on the retention and relentless promotion of individualism and private affairs
that ever fragments and disconnects individuals from the public terrain of
political participation; if it functions to guide people away from a striving
towards a communality of collective political endeavor however contentious
and contested and focuses our attentions on the personal politics of self-
representation, as expressed by the members of CSC, it will remain as a
network of singular acts of self-organizing production.
Third and most crucial, there is little concern for the deeper and broader
social and political contexts in which the practice of creative autonomy
and individuation takes place. These contexts involve the dominant fram-
ings of acceptable political action and social organization as well as the
broader positioning of political activity within neoliberal discourse. In this
contemporary political configuration participation is framed in terms of indi-
vidualistic values that are clearly identifiable in much of the life and action
in social media. Hence, the creative autonomy of individuals enabled by
new communication technologies that Castells (2009) work heralded as lib-
eratory and Stiegler (2009, 2008) believed brings the individual into being,
can equally be interpreted, drawing on Castoriadis (1991), as individualistic
autonomy (p. 163) conducive to neoliberal practice. The problem with the
notions of creative autonomy and individuation forwarded by Stielger and
Castells is that they prioritize individual agency over the political and ide-
ological context and resist problematizing the notion of autonomy therein.
Autonomy in neoliberal contexts may be guided principally by ego-centered
needs and practices structured around the self that may implicitly endorse
individualized and fragmented responsesa further push away from a col-
lective public citizenry to isolated, atomized self-hood. Rather, we need to
acknowledge the deep context in which any form of creativity or auton-
omy is situated and seek to understand their various manifestations in
relation to it.
Therefore, claims that the starting conditions for social and political
action have been radically changed by Web 2.0, while suggestive in some
respects, leave crucial issues unexplored, as they are too individualistic.
192 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

A similar understanding is expressed also by Fuchs (2009), when he

contended:

[t]he empowerment discourse issue is individualistic because it focuses

research primarily on how individuals use SNS for making connections,
maintaining or receiving friendships, falling in love, creating autonomous
spaces etc. It does not focus on how technology and technology use are
framed by political issues and issues that concern the development of
society, such as capitalist crises, profit interest, global war, the global-
ization of capitalism, or the rise of a surveillance society (Fuchs, 2009,
p. 18).

Indeed, Castells (2009) own empirical results seem to suggest that digital
citizens are far from being autonomous from capital. On the majority of plat-
forms that they visit, their personal data and online behavior is stored and
assessed to generate profit by targeted advertising. The users who Google
data, upload or watch videos on YouTube, upload or browse personal
images on Flickr, or accumulate friends with whom they exchange content
or communicate online via social networking platforms such as MySpace or
Facebook, constitute an audience-turned-commodity that is sold to adver-
tisers. The difference between the audience commodity on traditional mass
media and on the Internet is that on the Internet the users are also content
producers. The contemporary turn of phrase, user-generated content, is a
catch-all description of the endless creative activity, communication, com-
munity building, and content production online. However, this still does
not denude the fact that this user activity is captured by and used for cor-
porate gain. We are excessively and ever more deeply commodified as so
much more of our daily habits and rituals take an informational technol-
ogy form. During much of the time that users spend online, they produce
profit for large corporations such as Google, News Corporation (which owns
MySpace), or Yahoo! (which owns Flickr). Advertisements on the Internet
are frequently personalized, which is made possible by the surveillance of,
storing of, and assessing of user activities and user data with the help of
computers and databases (Andrejevic, 2004, 2005). The audience turned
producer does not, in this context, signify a democratization of the media
towards a truly participatory system. It certainly does not confer autonomy
from capital, but rather the profound and subcybernetic commodification of
online human creativity. As several scholars concerned with issues of digital
labour have shown, social networking sites strengthen an advanced form of
capitalism that binds users to service providers through the exploitation of
their immaterial labour (Bauwens, 2008; Fuchs, 2009b; Huws, 2003; Petersen,
2008; Terranova, 2000, 2004; Van Dijck, 2009). An approach that emphasizes
political economic concerns reminds us that the Internet does not transcend
global capitalism but is deeply involved with it by virtue of the corporate
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 193

interests it supports and the discourses of capitalism and neoliberalism that

the people who use it are drenched in. In this manner social networking is
claimed to further steep individuals in neoliberal ideology in forms of medi-
ation that are deeply commodified while being conducive to sociality and
the facilitation of political networking.
Seen from this angle, the participation and autonomy that have been
heralded as revolutionary take on a different complexion as individuals are
forced to recognize and take account of current structures of power that
are ever present in an online context and encircle (but do not enslave) the
empowerment of individuals. In other words, it is important to address the
age-old sociological dilemma of the relation between structure and agency;
this can be done by decentering the media itself. Media or technological
centrism resists a deep and critical contextualization of social and political
life. As Couldry (2003) suggested, once the media (in any form) presents
itself as the center of society and individuals organize their lives and orient
our daily rituals and practice toward it, it is possible to fall prey to the
myth of the mediated centre (2003, p. 47). Media rituals not only stress
the significance of media but also allude to the importance of being in the
media and of being able to communicate ones message to otherswhether
for financial, political, or social gain. The more powerful and influential
individuals are, the better placed they are to get their message across. This
is as true in the expanded online world as it is in the contracted offline
world of the CSC. The millions of people who use social networking sites
inhabit a mediated world that offers the possibilities of more control than
mainstream media, is mobile, interactive and holds endless creative poten-
tial but is nonetheless mythic. The claimed ubiquity of the Internet and
social media stress the significance of always being tuned in and online.
The seductive power of this mythic center circulates around social life
and serves to obscure the legitimation of dominant values of neoliberal
society.

CONCLUSION

The question remains: Do social media do no more than serve ego-centered

needs and reflect practices structured around the self even in the nonmain-
stream world of alternative media? These practices may be liberating for the
user but not necessarily democratizing for society. The civically motivated
yet self-absorbed user of social media sees the endless possibility of online
connectivity against the banality of the social order. The motivation is often
fed by a desire to connect the self to society. Bimber (2000) noted that
although online technologies contribute toward greater fragmentation and
pluralism in the structure of civic engagement, their tendency to deinsti-
tutionalise politics, fragment communication and accelerate the pace of the
194 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

public agenda and decision-making may undermine the coherence of the

public sphere (pp. 323333).
All creative human activity holds the potential for political transforma-
tive capacity but to understand how this potential can be translated into a
reality requires an appreciation of the enduring social and political structures
that surround and preexist certain individuals and their relations with others.
Broadening radical political imagination to think outside of neoliberal frame-
works is not a solitary project but a collective endeavor. This is not to deny
the role of individuals in the single acts of political intervention. As Foucault
(1987) stated, at certain points in time, the problem is not trying to dissolve
relations of power [ . . . ] but to give ones self the rule of law . . . the ethos,
the practice of self, that will allow these games of power to be played with
a minimum domination (p. 129).
The issue that remains, however, is just how minimal the domination of
online communications isIs it freedom to express through a different way
of telling or simply an inability to see the practices of domination that are
ever deeper embedded in the means of communication?

REFERENCES

Andrejevic, M. (2004). The web cam subculture and the digital enclosure. In
N. Couldry & A. McCarthy (Eds.), MediaSpace: Place, scale and culture in a
media age (pp. 193209). New York, NY: Routledge.
Andrejevic, M. (2005). The work of watching one another: Lateral, surveillance, risk
and governance. Surveillance and Society, 2, 479497.
Atton, C. (2002). Alternative media. London, England: Sage.
Bauwens, M. (2008). The social web and its social contracts: Some notes on social
antagonism in netarchical capitalism. Re-Public, Re-Imagining Democracy.
Retrieved from http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=261
Bimber, B. (2000) The study of information technology and civic engagement.
London, England: Routledge.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Castoriadis, C. (1991). Philosophy, politics, autonomy: Essays in political philosophy.
New York, NY: Oxford.
Couldry, N. (2003). Media rituals: A critical approach. London, England: Routledge.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (1999). Social movements: An introduction. Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Dewalt, B. R. (2002). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira Press.
Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: The political experience of alternative commu-
nication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellison, N., Lampe, C., & Steinfield, C. (2009). Social networking sites and society:
Current trends and future possibilities. Interactions Magazine, 16(1).
 Alternative Media, Politics, and Social Networking Sites 195

Erkul, E. R., & Kes- Erkul, A. (2009). Web 2.0 in the process of e-participation:
The case of organizing for America and the Obama Administration (Working
Paper No. 09-001). University of Massachusetts, MA: National Centre for Digital
Government.
Foucault, M. (1987). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom. Philosophy
and Social Criticism, 12, 112131.
Fuchs, C. (2009a). Social networking sites and the surveillance society. A critical case
study of the usage of studiVz, Facebook, and MySpace by students in Salzburg
in the context of electronic surveillance. Salzburg, Austria: Forschungsgruppe
Unified Theory of Information (Research Group Unified Theory of Information).
Fuchs, C. (2009b). Some reflections on Manuel Castells book Communication
Power. TripleC, 7(1), 94108.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Hadl, G. (2009, July 23). Alternative, community, citizens, radical, autonomous,
tactical or civil society media?: A quick guide through the theory fog contri-
bution to a panel in honor of Ole Prehn, IAMCR 2009 Congress, Mexico City,
Mexico.
Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Huws, U. (2003). The making of a cybertariat: Virtual work in a real world. New
York, NY: Monthly Review Press.
Jarrett, K. (2008). Interactivity is evil! A critical investigation of Web 2.0. First
Monday, 13(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/
index.php/fm/article/view/2140/1947
Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Metzgar, E., & Maruggi, A. (2009). Social media and the 2008 U.S. presidential
election. San Jose, CA: Society for New Communications Research Publisher.
Petersen, S. M. (2008). Loser generated content: From participation to exploitation.
First Monday, 13(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/
ojs/index.php/fm/rt/printerFriendly/2141/1948
Sandoval, M., & Fuchs, C. (2009). Towards a critical theory of alternative media.
Telematics and Informatics, 27, 141150.
Sassen, S. (2004). Electronic markets and activist networks: The weight of social
logics in digital formations. In R. Latham & S. Sassen (Eds.), Digital formations:
New architectures for global order. Princeton University Press.
Schultz, D. (2008). Support the monks protest in Burma. A DigiActive Introduction
to Facebook Activism. Retrieved from http://www.digiactive.org/wpcontent/
uploads/digiactive_facebook_activism.pdf
Sennett, R. (1974). The fall of public man. New York, NY: Norton.
Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organi-
zations. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Stiegler, B. (2006). The disaffected individual in the process of psychic and
collective disindividuation. Retrieved from http://arsindustrialis.org/disaffected-
individual-process-psychic-and-collective-disindividuation
196 N. Fenton and V. Barassi

Stiegler, B. (2008a). Acting out. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Stiegler, B. (2008b, November). The alternative of metadata: Automated voluntary
servitude or economy of contribution. Keynote Lecture at the Force of Metadata
Conference organized by the Goldsmiths Media Research Centre and the Centre
of Cultural Studies, Goldsmiths, London, UK.
Stiegler, B. (2009). Teleologics of the snail: The errant self wired to a WiMax
network. Theory, Culture and Society, 26(23), 3345.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2007). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes
everything. New York, NY: Penguin.
Terranova, T. (2000). Free labour: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social
Text, 18(2), 3358.
Terranova, T. (2004). Network culture: Politics for the information age. London: Pluto
Press.
Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user-generated content.
Media, Culture & Society, 31(1), 4158.
Van Dijck, J., & Nieborg, D. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis
of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media Society, 11, 855874.
Venn, C., Boyne, R., Phillips, J., & Bishop, R. (2007). Technics, media, teleology:
Interview with Bernard Stiegler. Theory, Culture and Society, 24, 334341.
Zimmer, M. (2008). The externalities of Search 2.0: The emerging privacy
threats when the drive for the perfect search engine meets Web 2.0. First
Monday, 13(3). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/
index.php/fm/article/view/2136/1944