Abstract

In this article, I argue for an interpretive approach to digitalization research that analyzes the concepts, narratives, and belief systems in digitalization debates. I illustrate this methodological proposal by assessing the spread of network ideas. Many political actors and digitalization researchers follow network ideas, e.g. by claiming that the rise of a network society must lead to network governance. In contrast to this narrative, I argue that there are multiple visions of the digital society, each of which follows a specific pattern of epistemology, social imaginary, and political proposals. These competing self-interpretations must be investigated by digitalization research in order to map and evaluate different pathways into a digital society. For doing so, critical conceptual analysis draws on political theory, critical conceptual history, and the sociology of knowledge. It offers two major benefits for digitalization research. Firstly, it provides a systematic overview of competing governance rationalities in the digital society, enabling a critical evaluation of their potentials and proposals. Secondly, it enhances the methodological rigor of digitalization research by reviewing the narratives researchers themselves tell. I substantiate these claims by analyzing and historicizing the above network narrative. Tracing it back to cybernetics, I show that it has been used multiple times in efforts to reshape the way we think about society and politics, including our concepts of subjectivity, power, and governance.

Highlights

  • Digitalization is permeated with multiple visions of social regulation

  • To better grasp how such an approach may enhance our understanding of competing governance rationalities in the digital society, let us have a look at two standing proposals that combine political theory, intellectual history, and the sociology of knowledge—the decentered theory of governance by political theorist Mark Bevir (2010, 2013, 2020; Bevir and Rhodes 2003) and the pragmatic sociology proposed by Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot (1999, 2000, 2006) and continued by Boltanski and Chiapello (2005)

  • I argued for an interpretive approach to digitalization research that analyzes the concepts, narratives, and belief systems in digitalization debates

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Digitalization is permeated with multiple visions of social regulation. They make powerful assumptions on the fabric of the social world, the forms of subjectivity we can or must take, and the supposed role of political institutions. I argue that a systematic and historical analysis of the concepts, narratives, and belief systems at play is crucial to understand this contingent relationship of digitalization and governance Such critical conceptual analysis is usually associated with political theory, conceptual history, or the sociology of knowledge. On the one hand, analyzing the concepts, narratives, and belief systems will provide an overview of the competing visions of a network society we encounter in political debates. By historicizing these visions, we can denaturalize the rationalities for proposed governance arrangements and unlock the rich experience we have with many of them. I illustrate my methodological proposal by investigating the history, rationality, and consequences of network ideas

Social self-interpretations and governance rationalities
Two exemplary approaches
Gains for digitalization research
The network paradigm and its political ideas
Cybernetic origins
The rise of network ideas
The network paradigm in digitalization research
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.