|
Introduction
Capitalism is a production system established on the widening of commodity production. This means that it tries to transform everything possible into commodity forms and capital has an everlasting effort to succeed and render sustainable this transformation. Nowadays, what is happening in cultural production sphere indicates that capital has been expanded in this domain as well. Consequently, there is a widespread industry that mediates culture and posits it as a commodity. In order to understand this industry, it is necessary to comprehend the commodity production processes in it. This brings on an inevitable discussion on whether these cultural products and practices are commodities or not.
In this study, it is discussed whether the cultural products and practices we consume on daily basis, such as music we listen; news, articles and books we read; television dramas and movies we watch, are commodities or not.
The relationship between culture and commodity, shaped by the logic of capitalist production, is explored in the studies focusing on Marx’s theoretical and conceptual set. The initial works related to cultural production were produced in the early 20th century by members of the Frankfurt School such as Walter Benjamin ([1936] 2010), Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer ([1947] 2002). In addition to these works, between the 1970s and 1990s, the issue was also discussed by British communication theorists such as Nicholas Garnham (1977; 1990), Graham Murdock and Peter Golding (1973), as well as by French scholar Bernard Miège (1979; 1989), from the perspective of political economy of communication. Nowadays, the subject is discussed in the recent studies of these theorists (Miège, 2011, Murdock, 2006; 2011, Garnham, 2000; 2011; Wayne, 2003) and in some other works (Louw, 2001; Mosco, 2009; Hesmondhalgh, 2011; Bolin, 2011).
In this discussion, Dallas Smythe’s thesis is important from several perspectives. Smythe (1977), a Canadian communication theorist who had a background of economist, broke the ground in the field with his influential thesis of “audience commodity”. The thesis has become the main discussion axis related to the subject since its appearance in the late 1970s. It sparked a vivid and important debate between Smythe (1978), Murdock (1978), Bill Livant (1979; 1982), Sut Jhally (1982) and Eileen R. Meehan (1984). Smythe’s audience commodity thesis continues to be the case today. Contemporary studies on the commodification processes in communication regularly make reference to Smythe’s work, as is the case in the works of Christian Fuchs (2012; 2013; 2015), Fernando Bermejo (2009), William H. J. Hebblewhite (2012), Brice Nixon (2014), Brett Caraway (2011), Micky Lee (2011), Philip M Napoli (2003), Robert Prey (2012), Earn Fisher (2012), Jernej A. Prodnik (2012).
It must be stressed that new technologies of communication have played an important role in the revival of the commodification discussion in the field given that activities of users in the Internet or in social networks are subjected to commodification. Together with this, new concepts are emerging such as prosumption or prosumer.
In this study, the commodification processes in communication will be investigated from a different perspective in order to contribute to the literature.
Commodity in Marx’s Theory
There is a valid reason to have this discussion in commodity framework. Above all, commodity is the mean of production of the “surplus value”, which is the anchor of the capitalist production system. Briefly, it can be said that accumulation in capitalist societies occurs with the transfer of a piece of this surplus value, which is acquired by means of commodity production and exchange, into production once again. Thus, it is extremely important for capitalism the commodity form of anything. In this framework, it is also essential whether cultural products and practices are commodities.
Given the importance of commodity, Marx (1992: 125) starts his analysis in the Capital with commodity. Just after mentioning the importance of commodity, Marx stresses the qualities of a commodity. Accordingly, a commodity has simultaneously a use value and a value in exchange. This quality is mentioned as the necessary feature of any single commodity without giving further details. So, it is difficult to understand why commodity has to have these values. However, in subsequent chapters, rendering various concepts comprehensible, Marx offers a comprehensive analysis of capitalist production process. Thus, it becomes clear why and how a commodity has this quality.
It must be noticed that Marx takes firstly a result of the capitalist production in the beginning of his analysis. In other words, commodity is the starting point in Marx’s analysis but is not more than a result in the general framework. Behind this stress on commodity, whole capitalist production system is standing. It can be said that Marx starts first and foremost from a result, which is commodity, and analysis comprehensively the mode of production which creates it. This is the reason why commodity can only be understood in the framework of capitalist mode of production and by considering the wholeness of this production.
In communication field, while discussing the commodity form of cultural products and practices, there is a general tendency that ignores this matter. In the literature, the wholeness of capitalist production, or the process that shapes “capitalist commodity”, is usually ignored. Rather, qualities acquired by things after their commodification is brought into the forefront, and the commodity character of cultural products and practices is analyzed from this perspective. In this kind of analysis, the problem is not addressing these qualities. As a matter of fact, these are necessary qualities of any single commodity has to have. The main problem is paying no attention to the fact why and how a commodity has gained these qualities in the capitalist production process. As a result of this, cultural products and practices, at the first glance, seems to be commodities to researchers but why and how they are transformed into commodities stay in obscurity. Therefore, it can lead us to wrong conclusions.
Given that commodity has more dimensions than it seems to have at the first glance, these kinds of conceptualizations must be addressed carefully. Hence, Marx (1992: 163) states that though commodity appears something that is easily comprehensible, a detailed analysis shows that it is more complex than it appears.
In the light of Marx’s analysis, we know that not all but some things can gain commodity form in capitalist societies. Why it is so? Marx (1992: 273) indicates certain necessary conditions to produce a product as a commodity. It is obvious that things can gain commodity form and have aforementioned qualities when some factors get together in the historical-social process of capitalist production. To determine these factors, we must first look at the whole capitalist production.
Let’s take Capital of Marx as an example of cultural product. While Marx was writing or producing Capital, any capitalist appropriated the value produced by him. As a matter of fact, Marx did not even produce a surplus value. He did not encounter a direct exploitation. His labor was qualitatively different; he was exerting an intellectual labor. Moreover, this intellectual labor was not commodified because it was not bought by a capitalist as a labor-power. At the same time, Capital was not the bearer of a surplus value, contrary to any commodity. From this perspective, instead of conceptualizing arbitrarily cultural products and practices in order to put them in commodity form, just like stretching them in “Procrustes bed”, it is wiser to analyze them in the context of the peculiarity of their producers and their own “uniqueness”.
In this study, following this way, we will explore firstly why and how things acquire commodity forms by paying attention to whole capitalist production. Then, based on this first analysis, we will try to determine whether cultural products and practices gain commodity forms according to their production processes in different production relations. If it is so, we will also try to explain why and how they gain this form.
Basically, it is argued that the idea of cultural products and practices as a commodity must be addressed cautiously. This is not a denial of the fact that they are commodities indeed. This is to say that not all but only some parts of this products and practices transform into commodities in some certain conditions. The reason of this is the production of these products and practices in very different relations of production and the fact that they are not general but special products and practices (Wayne, 2003: 21). Given that it is the main assumption of the study, this matter must be explained in detail.
Commodification of Cultural Products and Practices
Nowadays, cultural products and practices are mostly produced within cultural industry. First of all, we must consider these cultural products and practices produced in this industry through “content” and “medium” as a way of materialization and mediation for the content. In other words, the products and practices require certain type of medium for their production, distribution and consumption. For example, a piece of music can be listened with a radio or mp3 player; a television drama or movie can be watch with television or in a movie theater; news can be read on papers or internet; theatrical works are performed on stage that can be considered as a medium in that point.
Content and medium cannot be separated easily from each other in “essence” and in “form”. Content, which can exist in the absence of medium, can only transform into a general consumption object solely when it becomes “objectified” through medium. Similarly, medium can also exist in the absence of content but its transformation into a general consumption object requires content. Briefly, each one transforms the other into a consumption object by means of its existence; content provides internal object whereas medium constitutes external object of the consumption related to cultural products and practices.
The medium that offers a milieu for cultural products and practices is commodity. Diversification and variation that come with the commodification mostly result from the content. It can be said that cultural products and practices have two different dimensions; on the one hand there is content and on the other hand there is the combination of the content with the medium.
When we focus on content, commodity character of the majority of cultural products and practices is questionable. However, despite their differences they all become commodities peculiarly when they are combined with a medium, or a technology, that offers them a milieu. For instance, a piece of music turns into a commodity when it is finished by its composer and recorded afterwards on a CD or DVD. Likewise, a book becomes a commodity when it is send from the writer to the publisher to be published.
Here, we can indicate a “two step production”. In the study, this situation will be conceptualized as “dual production”. The first step is the materialization of the content. In this step, mainly intellectual or “creative” labor is performed. In the second step, there is the combination of the first step product with a technological medium, causing mainly a commodity production. My argument is that cultural products and practices gain their commodity form in the second step, and turn into cultural commodities. I also argue that, in cultural production, the integration of the ideological (content) and the economical (medium) is materialized in this second step.
If we take again the aforementioned example, the writing Capital corresponds to the first step. In this phase, the production process contains such a great diversity, to the point that we must have a Procrustean bed to qualify the end product as a commodity. However, the editorial process and the publication of Capital correspond to the second step. After this phase, there is no reason not to qualify the book as commodity. Notably, there is the production of use values in the first step and the production of exchange values in the second step.
Conclusion
This character of cultural products and practices underscores the reason why we must cautiously approach to the idea of cultural commodity. But it is important not to have a generalization on the issue. What is at stake here is just a general tendency. On the other hand, we must not consider the two steps of production as wholly separated and independent domains. In other words, it cannot be said that use values are always generated in the first step and their transformation into exchange values always happens in the second step. There can be other kind of transformations.
It is important to emphasize here that capital tries to commodify these products and practices despite of all differences they have.
References
Benjamin, W. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, London: Penguin Books, [1936] 2010.
Bermejo, F. “Audience manufacture in historical perspective: from broadcasting to Google”, New Media & Society, 2009, V. 11, No. 1-2, pp. 133-154.
Bolin, G. Value and the Media: Cultural Production and Consumption in Digital Markets, London: Ashgate Publishing, 2011.
Caraway, B. “Audience Labor in the New Media Environment: A Marxian Revisiting of the Audience Commodity”, Media, Culture & Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 5, pp. 693-708.
Fisher, E. "How Less Alienation Creates More Exploitation? Audience Labour on Social Network Sites", tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Fuchs, C. “Dallas Smythe Today - The Audience Commodity, the Digital Labour Debate, Marxist Political Economy and Critical Theory. Prolegomena to a Digital Labour Theory of Value”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 692-740.
Fuchs, C. Digital Labour and Karl Marx, New York: Routledge, 2013.
Fuchs, C. Culture and Economy in the Age of Social Media, New York: Routledge, 2015.
Garnham, N. “Towards a Political Economy of Culture”, New University Quarterly, 1977, V. 31, No. 3, pp. 341-357.
Garnham, N. Capitalism and Communication, London: SAGE Publications, 1990.
Garnham, N. Emancipation, the Media and Modernity: Arguments about the Media and Social Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Garnham, N. “The Political Economy of Communication Revisited”, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.) The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 41-61.
Hebblewhite, H. J. W. “Means of Communication as Means of Production” Revisited”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 203-213.
Hesmondhalgh, D. The Cultural Industries, London: Sage, 2011.
Horkheimer, M., Adorno, W. T., Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, California: Standford University Press, [1947] 2002.
Jhally, S. “Probing The Blindspot: The Audience Commodity”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 204-210.
Lee, M. “Google Ads and the Blindspot Debate”, Media, Culture and Society, 2011, V. 33, No. 3, pp. 433-447.
Livant, B. “The Audience Commodity: On The ‘Blindspot’ Debate”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1979, V. 3, No. 1, pp. 91-106.
Livant, B. “Working At Watching: A Reply To Sut Jhally”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1982, V. 6, No. 1-2, pp. 211-215.
Louw, E. The Media and Cultural Production, London: SAGE Publication, 2001.
Marx, K. Capital: Volume 1: A Critique of Political Economy, New York: Penguin Books, 1992.
Meehan, E. R. “Ratings and the institutional approach: A third answer to the Commodity Question”, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1984, V. 1, No. 2, pp. 216-225.
Miège, B. “The Cultural Commodity”, Media Culture Society, 1979, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 297-311.
Miège, B. The Capitalization of Cultural Production, New York: International General, 1989.
Miège, B. “Principal Ongoing Mutations of Cultural and Informational Industries”, in D. Winseck and D. Y. Jin (eds.) The Political Economies of Media: The Transformation of the Global Media Industries, London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2011, pp. 51-65.
Mosco, V. The Political Economy of Communication, Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.
Murdock, G. “Blindspot About Western Marxism: A Reply To Dallas Smythe”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 109-119.
Murdock, G. “Marx on Commodities, Contradictions and Globalisations Resources for a Critique of Marketised Culture”, E-Compós, 2006, V. 7, pp. 1-23.
Murdock, G. “Political Economies as Moral Economies: Commodities, Gifts and Public Goods”, in J. Wasko, G. Murdock and H. Sousa (eds.), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2011, pp. 13-40.
Murdock, G., Golding, P. “For A Political Economy of Mass Communication”, The Socialist Register, 1973, V. 10, pp. 205-234.
Napoli, P. M. Audience Economics and the Audience Marketplace, New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.
Nixon, B. “Toward a Political Economy of ‘Audience Labour’ in the Digital Era”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2014, V. 12, No. 2, pp. 713-734.
Prey, R. “The Network’s Blindspot: Exclusion, Exploitation and Marx’s Process-Relational Ontology”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 253-273.
Prodnik, J. “A Note on the Ongoing Processes of Commodification: From the Audience Commodity to the Social Factory”, tripleC-Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 2012, V. 10, No. 2, pp. 274-301.
Smythe, D. W. “Communications: Blindspot Of Western Marxism.” Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1977, V. 1, No. 3, pp. 1-28.
Smythe, D. W. “Rejoinder To Graham Murdock”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1978, V. 2, No. 2, pp. 120-127.
Wayne, M., Marxism and Media Studies: Key Concepts and Contemporary Trends, London: Pluto Press, 2003.
|
|
Introduction
During the past decade, social media platforms, such as blogs, microblogs, content communities, social networking sites became core communication tools for public debate. The global financial crisis plagued several European countries such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and UK whose governments, and in the case of Greece under the rule of international organizations, implemented austerity policies as a measure of crisis management. The impact of these policies gave rise to widespread public discontent and rage against public authorities and institutions on national as well as European levels. Moreover, the economic crisis increased antagonisms between EU members and limited the power of nation-states. In this context, the mainstream media have received ample critique for promoting the elites and not producing rich public spheres to debate the crisis. However, new media and social movements play today a particularly important role in shifting dominants' narratives and representations of the crisis in Europe, hence helping construct a variety of public spheres.
ICTs (particularly social media) transform the ways in which citizens demonstrate, protest and collaborate. With the use of digital technologies, publics increase their autonomy, join local or global networks and develop robust social bonds. Even though these networks consist of people with different aims and incentives, they are based on a sense of belonging and promote solidarity and cooperation among their members. Under these circumstances, individuals prepare the background and create the conditions towards direct democracy for both themselves and the next generations.
Methods
In this paper, we focus on social movements that have emerged in Europe since the outbreak of the crisis. In particular, we examine their political claims and ideological dispositions through the filters of continuity and change. We look at both the diachronous and the synchronous evolution of the movements. The diachronous perspective concerns the historical evolution of social movements by focusing on the common core that the movements share over time and across borders, as well as the social conditions that alter their dynamics. The synchronous perspective concentrates on the structural evolution of particular social movements, their interconnections with other movements of the same period, their influences and aspirations. Our aim is to explore the ways in which social movements in Europe build, promote and reinforce transnational dialogue, as a form of governance of the Commons towards their realization. The Commons is a kind of social good that is based on mutual agreement and social reciprocity, forming in the social ICT environment. To frame this discussion, the following research question will guide the paper: “how do the citizens govern their political communicative spaces”?
We apply Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), in order to understand the political contexts within which the texts of social movements are produced, distributed and received. In doing so, we follow Norman Fairclough’s systematic method of analysis (1992, 1995, 2004). Fairclough aims to reveal the ideological and power patterns that exist in discourses and displays the ways in which the discourses are involved in systems of power. Adopting this method in our paper, we observe how the texts construct reality, social identity and social relations, as well as how they are produced, distributed and consumed, and finally what are the social, political, institutional conditions that affect them. For us, discourses have power to raise awareness and develop consciousness on an issue contributing in this way both in social change and social emancipation.
The data comprises six social movements that arose in Greece, Spain and the UK during the economic crisis. The “Indignant Citizens movement” started in 2011 both in Greece (“Aganaktismenoi movement”) and Spain (“Indignados movement”), protesting against austerity politics and for a democratic rebirth, equality, justice and dignity. Both movements paved the way for the emergence of a range of social, self-organized solidarity movements-initiatives across Europe that still have an impact on peoples’ lives. In particular, we discuss the Greek “We don’t pay movement” (initially against the highway tolls), “Without middlemen movement” (against the market intermediaries) and the “Anti-gold mining movement-Skouries movement” (against ore mining for the protection of the environment) in parallel with the Spanish “Stop Desahancios Platform” (against eviction), the British “NHS social movement” (against the privatization of health system) and the Romanian “Save Rosia Montana movement” (against the Rosia Montana mining project). Our investigation explores the commonalities, correlations and interconnections between these movements, by analysing the official statements of the movements found in their blogs or websites and the comments (included videos) stated by their participants in their Facebook and/or Twitter accounts. In this way, we shed light on how people communicate particular meanings on specific social issues which under certain circumstances become large and universal.
References
- Castells Manuel (2012); Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Castells, M. (2008); The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78-93.
- Chakravartty, P. & Sarikakis, K. (2006); Media Policy and Globalization. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Donatella della Porta and Mario Diani (2006); Social Movements: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.
- Fairclough, N. (1989); Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
- Fairclough, N. (1992); Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
- Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. New York: Longman.
- Fairclough, Norman (2003); Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.
- Hofkirchner Wolfgang (2014), Idiotism and the Logic of the Third. In Maximilian Lakitsch (Ed.) (2014); Political Power Reconsidered State Power and Civic Activism between Legitimacy and Violence. Peace Report 2013, Reihe: Dialog.
- Hofkirchner W. (2014), The Commons from a Critical Social Systems Perspective, Recerca, Revista de Pensament I Analisi, N. 14, pp. 73-91.
- Melucci, A. (1996); Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. London: Cambridge University Press.
- Sarikakis, K. (2004); Powers in Media Policy: The Challenge of the European Parliament. Oxford: Peter Lang.
- Sarikakis, K. (2012); Securitisation and Legitimacy in Global Media Governance: Spaces, Jurisdictions and Tensions. In Volkmer, I. (Ed). Handbook of Global Media Research – Handbooks in Communication and Media. Malden,MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Shirky Clay (2011); The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs 90 (1):28-41.
|
|
Introduction
Communication is fundamental in marketing. Pinske and Dommisse (2009) have highlighted that it is essential for consumers because they need to be informed about the benefits sprung by their responsible choices in terms of purchases; moreover it is important to improve a company’s reputation (Bronn and Vrioni, 2011; Mark-Herbert and Von Schantz, 2007). For this reason sustainability report, considering its communicational function, can be deemed also a tool for marketers.
According to Lozano and Huisingh (2001) sustainability report “is a voluntary activity with two general purposes: (1) to assess the current state of an organisation’s economic, environmental and social dimensions, and (2) to communicate a company’s efforts and Sustainability progress to their stakeholders. However, these purposes do not consider the time dimension, nor the interactions among the different sustainability dimensions”. Obviously companies can choose between two ways: transparency, showing real data, or greenwashing, masking their real attitude and relying on appearance, with risks for reputation and boycott actions (Glazer, Kanniainen and Poutvaara, 2010).
This research is focused on the oil sector, characterized by different sustainability problems, both in an environmental and a social perspective.
Methods
In order to highlight this issue in the oil sector, a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2009) has been applied. Two of the largest oil company have been chosen, BP and Eni. These companies draft a sustainability report, providing a lot of data and information about their attention to safeguard the environment and to have also a positive impact on society. In this study researchers have compared these two cases, spotlighting the controversies which sometimes are stressed in the public opinion. Researchers have analyzed these two companies reports and then they have compared the information gathered from this document to their image.
Results and Discussion
The analysis of these companies’ sustainability report has pointed out a deep commitment to protect environment and also to be responsible from a social point of view. In the following table, for example, there is the list of some of the indicators used in Eni’s report.
Table 1. Some of the sustainability indicators used by Eni.
Area // Main indicators
People // Training hours on safety, Safety expenditures, OHSAS 18001 certifications, Health and Hygiene expenditures, Employees (total), Employees (women), Women senior managers, Satisfaction of participants.
Environment // ISO 14001 certifications, ISO 50001 certifications, EMAS registrations, Total systems audit, External certifications bodies, Environmental expenditures, CO2 emissions, Indirect CO2 emissions from sales of products, Net consumption of primary resources, Nitrogen Oxide emissions, Sulphur Oxide emissions, Total water used, Total recycled or reused water, Waste from reclamation activities, Waste management expenditures.
Local development // Total spending for the territory, Interventions on the territories from agreements, conventions and PSA by category.
Stakeholders // Eni customer satisfaction score, Suppliers used, Overall distributed net added value.
Ethics // Presence of women on the Board of Directors of Eni Group companies, Hours of training on human rights, Suppliers subjected to qualification procedures including screening on human rights, SA8000 audits carried out.
Innovation // R & D expenditures net of general and administrative costs, Personnel employed in R & D activities.
In spite of this, this company has been accused to produce pollution in Nigeria, causing health problems for the local communities, but also to be irresponsible with workers. Also BP presents a report full of information about its sustainable initiatives but, at the same time, it has been found guilty because the damages created near the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
Conclusions
The analyzed cases have shown that sustainability report can be important in a marketing communication strategy but, at the same time, it is not a guarantee of truth. This shows that it is not a perfect tool for communication: it is necessary to research the possible ways to integrate information about environment and society in the balance sheet. Another reflection is relative to the importance of communicating with transparency: greenwashing could represent a problem also from a marketing point of view because it implies the worsening of the company’s reputation.
References
- Bronn, P.S.; Vrioni, A.B. Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: an overview. International Journal of Advertising 2011, 20, 207-222.
- Glazer, A., Kanniainen, V., Poutvaara, P. Firms' ethics, consumer boycotts, and signalling. European Journal of Political Economy 2010, 26, 340-350.
- Lozano, R., Huisingh, D. Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production 2011, 19, 99-107.
- Mark-Herbert, C.; Von Schantz, C. Comunicating corporate social responsibility- Brand management. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies 2007, 12, 4-11.
- Pinske, J.; Dommisse, M. Overcoming barriers to sustainability: an explanation of residential builder's reluctance to adopt clean technologies. Business Strategy and the Environment 2009, 18, 515-527.
- Yin, R.K. Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, USA, 2009.
|
|
Introduction
The first remote sensing satellites were launched in the 1960s by the U.S. and Soviet militaries as one central element of their space race during the cold war. The space-based surveillance systems helped to reduce the ‘fog of war’ and mitigate the risk of being surprised by the enemy’s military capacity or an actual attack [1]. While geospatial intelligence still is a very important element of governmental security policy, the user group as well as the scope of application have extended well beyond the circles of intelligence and government agencies over the last decade. The privatization and advancement of satellite technology have led to novel implications for international politics. In the aftermath of 9/11, many states have further restricted information in the public domain and expanded their use of surveillance technology to control their citizens. At the same time, applications like Google Earth and commercial satellite technology also allow spaces to be seen that governments wanted to keep secret from civil society [2]. The increasing availability of commercial and open source satellite imagery has begun to challenge governments’ interpretational sovereignty by opening up spaces for new expert groups to play an influential role in security discourses that is based on their “authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge” [3-5]. Indicative for this is the growing amount of international organizations, freelance experts and non-governmental organizations (NGO) that use commercial satellite imagery to augment assessments of global security and human rights issues.
Research Puzzle
Remote sensing is particularly valuable in situations of incertitude and when sites are inaccessible. Similarly, non-governmental expert networks’ leverage to affect the definition of security problems, interests or policy responses is greatest when issues are characterized by political complexity and factual uncertainty [3, 6]. The case of North Korea possesses these characteristics as the development of its nuclear program as well as its human rights situation are heavily contested and the country is difficult to access due to government restrictions. Working around these difficulties, satellite imagery analysts closely observe North Korea’s nuclear facilities, human rights situation and nuclear test sites and publicly report any development on the ground. By combining satellite imagery analysis with various communication channels, this expert network cannot only produce policy-relevant knowledge but also directly disseminate it globally. Against this background, the paper aims at assessing non-governmental satellite imagery analysis’ potential and constraints to provide additional and alternative viewpoints and how it punctures state propaganda and affects public opinion on security and human rights issues in North Korea.
The paper understands knowledge and its context of origin to “play a crucial and complex role in the configuration of societal security” [7]. Therefore, it will focus on practices of security knowledge production and dissemination based on commercial satellite imagery. More precisely, we will ask: (1) How has the commercialization of remote sensing influenced the emergence of non-governmental satellite imagery analysts as an epistemic community? (2) How do non-state experts produce security knowledge about North Korea based on satellite imagery and what is the role of uncertainties in that process?
Theoretical Considerations
The paper is located at the intersection between International Relations (IR) and Science and Technology Studies (STS). Only recently research has started to bring together both disciplines on a theoretical and empirical level to investigate the interrelation of technology, power and security [8-13]. Moreover, only few studies have concentrated how non-state satellite imagery analysis is conducted [14] and how it affects discourses of international politics [15, 16]. Research on remote sensing in international politics can be grouped in two different realms, i.e. governmental and non-governmental. While the former focuses on the capabilities and application in a state security or intelligence context [17, 18], the latter mostly analyzes non-governmental usage and work in areas of human security and environmental issues [14-16, 19, 20]. Early on, scholars pointed to the difficulties of satellite imagery analysis and the potentially severe consequences of incorrect conclusions that are difficult to challenge by non-experts [1, 21]. Despite these early warnings, the knowledge practices of non-governmental satellite imagery analysts are still insufficiently understood and only very limited research has been done on the ways that non-governmental analysts deal with the challenges of analyzing and interpreting satellite imagery in a politically highly sensitive context and how they cope with uncertainties.
Main Arguments and Discussion
We outline different techno-political and epistemic conditions non-state actors face by taking into account not only their technical capabilities but also the political and historical context of remote sensing. This is necessary to build the underlying parameters to frame the modes of knowledge production and subsequent dissemination. We will make two major arguments: (1) The commercialization of space-based remote sensing has laid the foundation for the emergence of an expert group of analysts by increasing their epistemic capacity. (2) This network of non-governmental satellite imagery analysts shares particular norms and epistemic practices and experiences significant uncertainties when producing knowledge about North Korea.
The paper takes political decisions as rarely based on firm knowledge [22] and will contribute to a better understanding and assessment of expert groups’ inherent uncertainties in the process of security knowledge production. In doing so, it attempts to foster a constructive and necessary debate on the legitimacy of knowledge claims in international security. Furthermore, it will offer theoretical considerations on the interrelation of technology, knowledge production and security discourses in IR and STS. Results will also be of interest to practitioners and researchers of development assistance, security policy and humanitarian aid.
References and Notes
- Skolnikoff, E.B., The Elusive Transformation: Science, Technology, and the Evolution of International Politics, 1993, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Perkins, C. and M. Dodge, Satellite Imagery and the Spectacle of Secret Spaces. Geoforum, 2009. 40(2009): p. 546-560.
- Antoniades, A., Epistemic Communities, Epistemes and the Construction of (World) Politics. Global Society, 2003. 17(1): p. 21-38.
- Cross, M.K.D., Rethinking Epistemic Communities Twenty Years Later. Review of International Studies, 2013. 39(1): p. 137-160.
- Haas, P., Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. . International Organization, 1992. 46(1): p. 1-35.
- Dunlop, C., Epistemic Communities, in Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, E.J. Araral, et al., Editors. 2013, Routledge: New York. p. 229-243.
- Burgess, J.P., The Future of Security Research in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2014, European Science Foundation: Strasbourg.
- Bueger, C., Making Things Known: Epistemic Infrastructures, the United Nations and the Translation of Piracy. International Political Sociology, 2015. 9(1): p. forthcoming.
- Fritsch, S., Technology and Global Affairs. International Studies Perspectives, 2011. 12(1): p. 27-45.
- Fritsch, S., Conceptualizing the Ambivalent Role of Technology in International Relations: Between Systemic Change and Continuity, in The Global Politics of Science and Technology: Concepts from International Relations and Other Disciplines, M. Mayer, M. Carpes, and R. Knoblich, Editors. 2014, Springer: Heidelberg. p. 115-138.
- Herrera, G.L., Technology and International Transformation, 2006, Albany: State University of New York Press.
- Scheuerman, W.E., Realism and the Critique of Technology. Cambridge Journal of International Affairs, 2009. 22(4): p. 563-584.
- Weiss, C., Science, technology and international relations. Technology in Society, 2005. 27: p. 295–313.
- Aday, S. and S. Livingston, NGOs as intelligence agencies: The empowerment of transnational advocacy networks and the media by commercial remote sensing in the case of the Iranian nuclear program. Geoforum, 2009. 40(4): p. 514-522.
- Herscher, A., Surveillant Witnessing: Satellite Imagery and the Visual Politics of Human Rights. Public Culture, 2014. 26(3): p. 469-500.
- Hong, C., The Mirror of North Korean Human Rights: Technologies of Liberation, Technologies of War. Critical Asian Studies, 2013. 45(4): p. 561-592.
- Graham, T. and K.A. Hansen, Spy Satellites and Other Intelligence Technologies That Changed History2007, Seattle: University of Washington Press.
- Harris, C., The Omniscient Eye: Satellite Imagery, "Battlespace Awareness," and the Structures of the Imperial Gaze. Surveillance & Society, 2006. 4(1/2): p. 101-122.
- Livingston, S. and W.L. Robinson, Mapping Fears: The Use of Commercial High-Resolution Satellite Imagery in International Affairs. Astropolitics, 2003. 1(2): p. 3-25.
- Shim, D., Visual Politics and North Korea: Seeing is Believing, 2014, New York: Routledge.
- Florini, A.M. and Y. Dehqanzada, Commercial Satellite Imagery Comes of Age, in Intelligence and the National Security Strategist: Enduring Issues and Challenges, R.Z. George and R.D. Kline, Editors. 2006, Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham. p. 159-168.
- Daase, C. and O. Kessler, Knowns and Unknowns in the 'War on Terror': Uncertainty and the Political Construction of Danger. Security Dialogue, 2007. 38(4).
|
