How should we understand the relationship between Internet and politics? Towards a theoretical framework

TY - CONF

T1 - How should we understand the relationship between Internet and politics?

T2 - ECPR General Conference

AU - Hoff, Jens Villiam

AU - Bjerke, Flemming

N1 - Conference code: 5

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - The purpose of this paper is to produce a theoretical framework, which it is possible to use in the analysis of all kinds of political practices involving internet use. In order to produce a solid, encompassing yet flexible framework it is necessary to engage in theoretical discussions on three levels: a) technology and society, b) media, c) the internet sui generis. Concerning level (a) technological determinist as well as social constructivist are seen to have more or less serious deficiencies in explaining why certain TMIPP's (technologically mediated innovations in political practices; see Hoff 2000) are developed and used and others not. These deficiencies call for finding a "middle ground" between technological determinism and social constructivism. Such middle ground is found in on the one hand establishing new medium theory (level b); especially as found in the works of Hutchby (2001) and Deibert (1997) as a centrepiece in the theoretical framework, and on the other hand by drawing on elements of sociological institutionalism. In this connection especially Hutchby's concept of media (the internet) as "communicative affordances" is found useful. However, in order to understand more precisely how the specific affordances of the internet is translated into specific political practices we need to understand how these practices are produced at the intersection between discourses, technology (hardware and software configurations) and institutions. Thus the main elements in the framework become discourses, practices/institutions and hardware/software. This framework has some similarity to the framework for understanding internet regulation and policies developed by Lessig (1999), but also has certain advantages over this framework. Also, the framework bear some resemblance to institutionalist theory (Campbell 2004), but for a variety of reasons we find the more basic social-analytical perspective of Schmidt (1992) better suited for our purposes.

AB - The purpose of this paper is to produce a theoretical framework, which it is possible to use in the analysis of all kinds of political practices involving internet use. In order to produce a solid, encompassing yet flexible framework it is necessary to engage in theoretical discussions on three levels: a) technology and society, b) media, c) the internet sui generis. Concerning level (a) technological determinist as well as social constructivist are seen to have more or less serious deficiencies in explaining why certain TMIPP's (technologically mediated innovations in political practices; see Hoff 2000) are developed and used and others not. These deficiencies call for finding a "middle ground" between technological determinism and social constructivism. Such middle ground is found in on the one hand establishing new medium theory (level b); especially as found in the works of Hutchby (2001) and Deibert (1997) as a centrepiece in the theoretical framework, and on the other hand by drawing on elements of sociological institutionalism. In this connection especially Hutchby's concept of media (the internet) as "communicative affordances" is found useful. However, in order to understand more precisely how the specific affordances of the internet is translated into specific political practices we need to understand how these practices are produced at the intersection between discourses, technology (hardware and software configurations) and institutions. Thus the main elements in the framework become discourses, practices/institutions and hardware/software. This framework has some similarity to the framework for understanding internet regulation and policies developed by Lessig (1999), but also has certain advantages over this framework. Also, the framework bear some resemblance to institutionalist theory (Campbell 2004), but for a variety of reasons we find the more basic social-analytical perspective of Schmidt (1992) better suited for our purposes.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - Internet

KW - theory

KW - communicative affordance

KW - practices

KW - communities

KW - discourse

M3 - Paper

Y2 - 10 September 2009 through 12 September 2009

ER -