Abstract
In Misunderstanding the Internet, three leading media and communication scholars present their take on the history, sociology, politics and economics of the internet. Curran, Fenton and Freedman have divided these aspects between them into three parts, with altogether six individually authored chapters and a co-authored conclusion.
The book is framed as a counter-argument to overly celebratory views of the transformative potential of internet technology. The first chapter, ‘Reinterpreting the Internet’, by Curran, delves straight into these utopian visions, categorizing them as four sets of predictions, concerning economic transformation, global understanding, more and better democracy, and improved journalism. The conclusion is that societal contexts matter, more than the most optimistic views would have it.
Chapter 2 offers Curran’s rethinking of internet history. The rethinking takes two forms. First, the chapter updates earlier attempts by focusing on the later phase of internet history, as opposed to the ‘early heroic phase’ (p. 35). Secondly, Curran provides insights into non-Western history. The Arab uprisings in 2010 receive attention here, including the gender dimension. Curran concludes that, overall, society matters more for the development and use of the internet than the other way around.
Freedman’s part provides two chapters on the political economy of the internet. Chapter 3 looks at the buzzwords generated by popular literature on digital economics. Laying out four features found in these writings about abundance, small businesses, sharing and disruption, Freedman builds on other critical scholars to argue that capitalism fundamentally does not change: ‘The pipes may be increasingly digital, but the piper is still being paid and looking to make a profit’ (p. 70).
In Chapter 4, on regulation, Freedman challenges the idea that the internet is either regulated or not. He describes the mix of current governance tools and procedures, and shows blurred borders between government and non-government, ending with a call for regulation anchored in a democratically accountable and representative state, adding that such a description might fall a bit short of existing states.
The third part about power is authored by Fenton. She concentrates on social networking (Chapter 5) and radical politics (Chapter 6). In Chapter 5, Fenton argues against four claims about online social networking: that it is communication led instead of information driven; that it encourages deliberation and dissent; that it is predicted on self-communication to a mass audience; and that it offers a new form of social telling. Fenton underlines that social networking services/social media (she uses the terms seemingly interchangeably) are not primarily about political engagement, and we should not expect their uses to revolutionize the structures on which they are built.
Chapter 6 sees Fenton develop a position on the internet’s potential for radical politics. She refutes the most optimistic claims about multiplicity, interactivity and autonomy, but also questions some of the more pessimistic takes. Fenton uses several examples, including the 2010–11 UK student protests and Iran’s so-called Green Revolution in 2009, to show how a certain understanding of power along with a ‘particular socio-geographic lens’ (p. 157) are needed to make sense of the radical potential of the internet.
In the final concluding chapter, the authors together sum up the theme of the book and their arguments, and propose a manifesto to ‘resurrect public interest regulation’ of the internet (p. 183). The manifesto covers journalism, infrastructure, public spaces, transnational communication and circulation of content – all with an aim of redistribution towards the public.
The result is a compact, useful textbook. The different chapters are all well written and they offer clear arguments based on overviews and discussions of relevant recent contributions. The book comes across as up-to-date and the authors employ examples that serve their purposes well. They do a good job extending the discussion beyond the Western parts of the world. In addition, their historical awareness is laudable, not only in the historical Chapter 2, but also, for instance, where Freedman connects current celebratory writings to their 1970s counterparts. The book is indeed polemical. It has plenty of clearly formulated statements, such as: ‘Networks are not inherently liberatory; network openness does not lead us directly to democracy’ (p. 142). All these features make Misunderstanding the Internet a welcome contribution, and one that would fit well on the reading list of a range of courses.
The book’s structure prioritizes independence rather than connections between the chapters. The first chapter does not offer an overview of the book, and there are few references across the chapters (notably more in Fenton’s chapters). Of course, being written by three different individual authors, the writing style also varies. For instance, Chapter 6 includes reviews or discussions of a broad range of theoretical contributions, not found to the same extent in the other chapters. As such, the chapters work well individually, but a different structure could have strengthened the book’s coherent argument further.
When laying out the opposition – the representatives of the celebratory discourse – Curran, Fenton and Freedman draw on a range of sources. They use popular writings by the likes of Jeff Jarvis and Clay Shirky alongside older similar works (e.g. Negroponte), as well as politicians, journalists and other commentators. They also discuss similar views found in academic texts, but the impression is that we are dealing with popular views in the public discourse. We are never told why we need to use so much energy on countering their claims – why they matter. One answer might be that the popular optimistic views are being picked up by powerful people, forming a basis for actual policy-making, but it would be interesting to see the authors answer this question more explicitly.
Throughout the book, the authors stress the importance of context. To understand the impact of the internet, we need to understand specific political and cultural surroundings. Yet, one dimension of the internet’s context gets little attention: the book does not systematically place the internet, its technology, politics, economics, content and uses, in a wider media landscape. While the authors prove that it is still possible to provide analyses which single out the internet, connecting its recent developments more clearly with other technologies and media seems to be the next challenge.