![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I had a really interesting lecture today about Communicative Capitalism. The basic idea was that new media forms, i.e. the internet, make us feel like we are playing an active role. For example say you're American and following the presidential campaign, you may log on to a forum, or onto lj, and post your opinion. This is your part, your contribution to the debate yes?
But where does that really get you?? Sure your opinion is out there along with thousands of others, but there isn't really ever a response. This is the view the author we were talking about takes, that its just a massive amount of content circulating. There's never any meaningful response to it. We feel like we're acting, but in fact by buying into this fantasty that a message or a post makes a difference we are in fact not acting, we're being passive. We are depoliticising society.
The example given in one of our readings is of the protests against the war in Iraq, eventually Bush recognised that people had their opinions, that they had a right to and left it at that. There was no debate because he didnt participate in it. He just restated his opinion, added it to the circulation of media content.
I agree to an extent, we can use the net to debate issues with eachother, but it doesnt help us in the real world of politics, as politicians never respond. Even those who seem to, just use the net to promote themselves and their ideas.
Anyone else got an opinion? I found the whole thing really interesting obviously :)
The article the lecture was around was by Jodie Dean (2005), and titled: 'Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics'
But where does that really get you?? Sure your opinion is out there along with thousands of others, but there isn't really ever a response. This is the view the author we were talking about takes, that its just a massive amount of content circulating. There's never any meaningful response to it. We feel like we're acting, but in fact by buying into this fantasty that a message or a post makes a difference we are in fact not acting, we're being passive. We are depoliticising society.
The example given in one of our readings is of the protests against the war in Iraq, eventually Bush recognised that people had their opinions, that they had a right to and left it at that. There was no debate because he didnt participate in it. He just restated his opinion, added it to the circulation of media content.
I agree to an extent, we can use the net to debate issues with eachother, but it doesnt help us in the real world of politics, as politicians never respond. Even those who seem to, just use the net to promote themselves and their ideas.
Anyone else got an opinion? I found the whole thing really interesting obviously :)
The article the lecture was around was by Jodie Dean (2005), and titled: 'Communicative Capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics'
Tags: