Contemporary Technology Discourse and the Legitimation of Capitalism

Abstract

At the center of contemporary discourse on technology — or the digital discourse — is the assertion that network technology ushers in a new phase of capitalism which is more democratic, participatory, and de-alienating for individuals. Rather than viewing this discourse as a transparent description of the new realities of techno-capitalism and judging its claims as true (as the hegemonic view sees it) or false (a view expressed by few critical voices), this article offers a new framework which sees the digital discourse as signaling a historical shift in the technological legitimation of capitalism, concurrent with the emergence of the post-Fordist phase of capitalism. Technology discourse legitimated the Fordist phase of capitalism by stressing the ability of technology and technique to mitigate exploitation. It hence legitimated the interventionist welfare state, the central planning in businesses and the economy, the hierarchized corporation, and the tenured worker. In contrast, contemporary technology discourse legitimates the post-Fordist phase of capitalism by stressing the ability of technology to mitigate alienation. It hence legitimates the withdrawal of the state from markets, the dehierarchization and decentralization of businesses, and the flexibilization of production and the labor process.

A Discursive Approach to Mediatisation: Corporate Technology Discourse and the Trope of Media Indispensability

“…Mobile media are promoted as replacements of face-to-face interactions and 'good work', the corporate jargon suggests, involves mobile solutions. As found also by Fisher (2010a), there are remarkable similarities between corporate technology discourse and post-Fordist capitalist discourse. Overall, work with mobile media is described as 'smart', 'effective', 'flexible', 'engaging', and 'empowering'.…”

“…Since technology discourse perspectives (e.g. Fisher, 2010aFisher, , 2010b tend to emphasise the reciprocity between discourse and reality precisely, they offer a valuable, third, point-of-entry into this article's object of study. In the end, the combination of mediatisation theory, SCOT, and technology discourse theory enables critical examinations of how technology discourse contributes to the production of social space.…”

“…Habermas (1971), furthermore, theorised the ideological functions of technology discourse specifically. Following Habermas, Fisher (2010a) proposes that contemporary technology discourse constitutes a legitimation discourse for post-Fordist capitalism: 'Post-Fordist social relations are not the inevitable social consequences of technological innovations…but also the result of discursive practices which have made such social transformations seem natural, neutral and inevitable, precisely because they are presented as ultimately technological (p. 244). This points to the complex relationship between technology, discursive practices, and society: technology discourse tends not only to make social transformations seem universal-to the extent that 'everybody', 'everywhere' is included (cf.…”

“…Stimulated by critical mediatisation theory as well as related accounts of the (technology) discourse-reality relationship (e.g. Berger & Luckmann, 1966;Fisher, 2010aFisher, , 2010bMarvin, 1988;Pinch & Bijker, 1984;Schutz, 1967;Williams, 1974), the article asks: if mobile media changes 'everything' in life-whose lives are being changed? If mobile media are 'indispensable' to modern ways of living-what are they supposed to do?…”

Technology Retreats and the Politics of Social Media

“…Once repressed or exploited in the Fordist era, worker creativity was to be unlocked and workers would no longer be alienated from the digital products they produced (Terranova 2000). This is the Internet version of the "new spirit of capitalism" which coopts the "artistic critique" that capitalism has become less alienating (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005;Fisher 2010). Seen as an example of a digital discourse, technology retreats legitimise capitalism through an incorporation of this critique.…”