Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 1/2017

01.02.2017 | Original Paper

The Logic of Digital Utopianism

verfasst von: Sascha Dickel, Jan-Felix Schrape

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

With the Internet’s integration into mainstream society, online technologies have become a significant economic factor and a central aspect of everyday life. Thus, it is not surprising that news providers and social scientists regularly offer media-induced visions of a nearby future and that these horizons of expectation are continually expanding. This is true not only for the Web as a traditional media technology but also for 3D printing, which has freed modern media utopianism from its stigma of immateriality. Our article explores the fundamental semantic structures and simplification patterns of popular media utopias and unfolds the thesis that their resounding success is based on their instantaneous connectivity and compatibility to societal discourses in a broad variety of cultural, political, or economic contexts. Further, it addresses the social functions of utopian concepts in the digital realm.
Vorheriger Artikel Guiding Orientation Processes as Possibility to Give Direction for System Innovations—the Use of Resilience and Sustainability in the Energy Transition
Nächster Artikel One Site—Multiple Visions: Visioneering Between Contrasting Actors’ Perspectives

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
This article partly resumes, expands, and elaborates our lines of arguments on digital media utopianism initially introduced in [1]. We wish to thank the reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions, which led to significant improvements in the final outcome.
 
2
From a historical perspective, the situation that basic communication infrastructures are operated and driven by private sector providers is not an exclusive phenomenon of our time. The invention of the metal movable-type printing press, for instance, was driven by Johannes Gutenberg and his investor due to tangible economic interests; and from the mid-fifteenth century on, it was able to spread rapidly primarily in light of its high sales potential along the European trade routes [35]. However, the novelty of digital modernity is the hegemony of a very few multinational companies as the operators of the key infrastructures of communication and information retrieval on a global scale that can hardly be counteracted by means of national government regulations. Indeed, such a level of power concentration was never reached in previous phases of media consolidation [36].
 
3
Our concept of media utopias as forms of utopian communication is related to other concepts in technology assessment and science and technology studies, first and foremost Armin Grunwald’s concept of visionary “techno-futures.” These futures are “decades away, and exhibit revolutionary features in terms of technology and of culture, human behavior, and individual and social issues” ([53], p. 285). At least all far-ranging techno-utopias are visionary techno-futures. It is, however, an empirical question, if all techno-futures share the narrative patterns that we reconstructed in our research. This can also be said regarding the concept of “socio-technical imaginaries” [54], which is primarily used to make sense of national innovation politics.
 
4
This definition is in alignment with the semantic origin of the utopian concept—the “Utopia” of the humanist Thomas More [57]: His book (first published in 1516) combines a radical critique of the current social order with the construction of a radical alternative of social interaction.
 
5
Dedicated visioneers are often directly based in the San Francisco Bay area or other centers of technological innovation: “Visioneering means developing a broad and comprehensive vision for how the future might be radically changed by technology, doing research and engineering to advance this vision, and promoting one’s ideas to the public and policy makers in the hopes of generating attention and perhaps even realization.” [63 p. 13.] In this context, Martin Sand stresses the importance “to study the intentions of visioneers, their alternatives, and the effects of their actions thoroughly to find out whether they are responsible.” [64, p. 84]
 
Literatur
1.
Dickel S, Schrape JF (2015) Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung. Emanzipation. Zur Architektur des digitalen Technikutopismus. Leviathan 43(3):442–463
2.
Toffler A (1980) The third wave. democratization in the late twentieth century. Bantam, New York
3.
Carpentier N, Dahlgren P, Pasquali F (2013) Waves of media democratization. A brief history of contemporary participatory practices in the media sphere. Convergence 19(3):287–294
4.
Rifkin J (2014) The zero marginal cost society. The Internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Palgrave, New York
5.
Ritzer G, Jurgenson N (2010) Production, consumption, prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital prosumer. J Consum Cult 10(1):13–36CrossRef
6.
7.
Husserl E (1970) The crises of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
8.
Schütz A, Luckmann T (1973) The structures of the life-world. Northwestern University Press, Evanston
9.
Bennett W, Segerberg A, Walker S (2014) Organization in the crowd: peer production in large-scale networked protests. Inf Commun Soc 17(2):232–260CrossRef
10.
The Economist (2012) A third Industrial Revolution. Special Report 04/21/2012
11.
Dickel S, Schrape JF (2016) Materializing digital futures. In: Ferdinand JP, Petschow U, Dickel S (eds) The decentralized and networked future of value creation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 163–178
12.
13.
Gillmor D (2006) We the Media. O’Reilly, Sebastopol
14.
Surowiecki, J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Anchor, New York
15.
Benkler Y, Nissenbaum H (2006) Commons-based peer production and virtue. J Polit Philos 14(4):394–419CrossRef
16.
McLuhan M (1964) Understanding media: the extensions of man. McGraw-Hill, New York
17.
18.
König R (2013) Wikipedia: between lay participation and elite knowledge representation. Inf Commun Soc 16(2):160–177CrossRef
19.
Dolata U, Schrape JF (2016) Masses, crowds, communities, movements: collective action in the Internet age. Soc Mov Stud 18(1):1–18CrossRef
20.
Haucap J, Heimeshoff U (2014) Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization? IEEP 11(1/2):49–61CrossRef
21.
22.
Bruns A (2008) Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and beyond: from production to produsage. Peter Lang, New York
23.
Castells M (2009) Communication power. Oxford University Press, Oxford
24.
Benkler Y (2006) The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven
25.
Paulussen S, Harder R (2014) Social media references in newspapers: Facebook, Twitter and YouTube as sources in newspaper journalism. Journal Pract 8(5):542–551
26.
Bruns A, Burgess J, Mahrt M (eds.) (2014) Twitter and society. Peter Lang, New York
27.
Schrape, JF (2016) Social media, mass media and the public sphere. Differentiation, complementarity and co-existence. SOI Discussion Paper 2016-01. University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart
28.
29.
Jarren O (2008) Massenmedien als Intermediäre. Zur anhaltenden Relevanz der Massenmedien für die öffentliche Kommunikation. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft 56(3/4):329–346
30.
31.
Anderson C (2006).The long tail. Hyperion, New York
32.
33.
Shelanski H (2013) Information, innovation, and competition policy for the Internet. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 161:1663–1705
34.
Gerlitz C, Helmond A (2013) The like economy: social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media Soc 15(8):1348–1365CrossRef
35.
Stöber R (2004) What media evolution is. A theoretical approach to the history of new media. Eur J Commun 19(4):483–505CrossRef
36.
Zerdick A, Schrape K, Artopé A, Goldhammer L, Lange U, Vierkant E, Lopez-Escobar S,R (2000) The media and communications sectors. A review looking forward. In: Zerdick A et al (eds) E-conomics: strategies for the digital marketplace. Springer, New York, pp 28–135CrossRef
37.
Brecht B (1967) Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 18. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Main), pp 127–134
38.
Schickler E (1994) Democratizing technology: hierarchy and innovation in public life. Polity 27(2):175–199CrossRef
39.
Sterling T (1986) Democracy in an information society. Inf Soc 4(1/2):9–47CrossRef
40.
Lévy P (1994) L’intelligence collective. La Découverte, Paris
41.
Van Dijck J (2013) The culture of connectivity: a critical history of social media. Oxford University Press, Oxford
42.
43.
Dickel S, Ferdinand JP, Petschow U (2016) The multiple applications of 3D printing: between maker movements and the future of manufacturing. In: Ferdinand JP, Petschow U, Dickel S (eds) The decentralized and networked future of value creation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 9–26
44.
45.
Dickel S, Ferdinand JP, Petschow, U (2014) Shared machine shops as real-life laboratories. Journal of Peer Production 5. http://​peerproduction.​net/ issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
46.
Gershenfeld NA (2005) Fab. The coming revolution on your desktop. From personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic, New York
47.
Anderson C (2010) In the next industrial revolution. Atoms are the new bits. Wired 2(10):58–67
48.
Anderson C (2012) Makers. The new industrial revolution. Crown Business, New York
49.
Kirk A (2001) Appropriating technology: the whole earth catalog and counterculture environmental politics. Environ Hist 6(3):374–394CrossRef
50.
Diederichsen D, Franke A (eds.) (2013) The whole earth. California and the disappearance of the outside. Sternberg Press, Berlin
51.
Watson M, Shove E (2008) Product, competence, project and practice: DIY and the dynamics of craft consumption. J Consum Cult 8(1):69–89CrossRef
52.
53.
Grunwald A (2014) The hermeneutic side of responsible research and innovation. J Responsib Innov 1(3):274–291CrossRef
54.
Jasanoff S, Sang-Hyun K (2009) Containing the atom: sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea. Minerva 47(2):119–146CrossRef
55.
Luhmann N (2000) The reality of the mass media. Stanford University Press, Stanford
56.
Luhmann N (2013) Theory of society. Volume 2. Stanford University Press, Standford
57.
More T (1983) Utopia [De optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia], Penguin, London
58.
Tocchetti S (2012) DIYbiologists as ‘makers’ of personal biologies: how MAKE magazine and Maker Faires contribute in constituting biology as a personal technology. Journal of Peer Production (2). http://​peerproduction.​net/​issues/​ issue-2/peer-reviewed-papers/diybiologists-as-makers/. Accessed 19. Aug 2016
59.
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations 5. Free Press, New York
60.
Barba E (2015) Three reasons why the future is in the making. Sci Technol Hum Values 40(4):638–650CrossRef
61.
Holbrook T, Osborn L (2016) Digital patent infringement in an era of 3D printing. U.C. Davis L. Rev 48:1319–1385
62.
63.
McCray P (2013) The visioneers. How a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton University Press, Princeton
64.
Sand M (2016) Responsibility and visioneering—opening Pandora’s box. NanoEthics 10(1):75–86CrossRef
65.
Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):285–298CrossRef
66.
Konrad K (2006) The social dynamics of expectations. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(3/4):429–444CrossRef
67.
Simondon G (2009) Technical mentality. Parrhesia 7: 7–27
68.
Esposito E (2011) The future of futures: the time of money in financing and society. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
69.
70.
Nassehi A (1999) Differenzierungsfolgen. Beiträge zur Soziologie der Moderne. Springer VS, Wiesbaden
71.
Luhmann N (1976) The future cannot begin: temporal structures in modern society. Soc Res 43:130–152
72.
Geels F (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39(4):495–510CrossRef
73.
Levitas R (1990) The concept of utopia. Allan, New York
Metadaten
Titel
The Logic of Digital Utopianism
verfasst von
Sascha Dickel
Jan-Felix Schrape
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0285-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

NanoEthics 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Changing Me Softly: Making Sense of Soft Regulation and Compliance in the Italian Nanotechnology Sector

Original Paper

Into Blue Skies—a Transdisciplinary Foresight and Co-creation Method for Adding Robustness to Visioneering

Original Paper

How Smart Grid Meets In Vitro Meat: on Visions as Socio-Epistemic Practices

Introduction

Visioneering Socio-Technical Innovations — a Missing Piece of the Puzzle

Book Review

Ethical Assessment of Emerging Technologies. Appraising the Moral Plausibility of Technological Visions

Original Paper

One Site—Multiple Visions: Visioneering Between Contrasting Actors’ Perspectives