Abstract
Scholars have long debated the effect that digital technologies have on political activities. These assessments range from the sweepingly celebratory to more tempered approaches that focus on the ways in which such technologies simultaneously enable and constrain political actors. Natalie Fenton’s Digital, Political, Radical certainly falls within the latter category, although her project is much more ambitious. In her words, she strives to combine the ‘macro-pessimism found in much political economy … with the micro-optimism of much cultural theory’ (p. 103). What results from this project is a nuanced analysis that identifies the novel ways in which technology has enabled in some ways certain political activities as well as constrained them in other ways. In the spirit of critical theory as developed by the Frankfurt School, her goal is to develop an analysis that is at once ‘explanatory, practical and normative’ (p. 4).
To accomplish this, Fenton dives deep within the existing literature of those fields that comprise her titular trilogy. She identifies the contradictions lying at the heart of dominant theorizations about the phenomena under consideration. What results is an iterative argument that unfolds across seven chapters. In this sense, separating the main arguments presented within each chapter seems to betray Fenton’s overall purpose – both rhetorically and methodologically. Her argument demands to be taken holistically, as it unfolds dialectically, taking stock of competing arguments and then, ultimately, proposing a way forward without leaving these considerations behind. She begins her argument by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of existing theories of digital technologies, especially the ways in which the Internet enables and constrains transnational political action. She reminds us that for all the celebratory assessments of what is possible in a digitally networked environment, the Internet is predominantly available to digital activists in developed countries. Not only is the Internet connectivity and accessibility more prevalent in these countries, but also, activists from these same regions tend to dominate radical transnational political discourse. This suggests that a political mobilization ‘dominated by social media tools … will likely be restricted to a certain stratum of society that will in turn influence the nature of the politics that develops’ (p. 15). The critical challenge is to work towards a radical transnational politics that is truly inclusive, particularly of those lacking the capability – to participate in debates in a networked environment.
Then, in what may be the strongest chapters of the book, Fenton considers what constitutes ‘political’ action in this context. She explores the limits of liberal democratic theories to demonstrate how they fail to account for much of what we could consider political action today. Dominant theorizations of political participation often rely on Habermasian theories of communicative action and public spheres. The major limitation here is the assumption that greater access to the tools necessary for political participation will lead to greater information pluralism in the marketplace for ideas. In turn, rational actors will take political action that ultimately enhances democracy. However, ‘actually existing democracy rarely follows the rational, logical pathways that a public sphere thesis suggests’ (p. 72). Rather, networked radical digital politics today are often fragmentary and diffuse, although they tend to adhere to a shared sense of injustice that takes many different forms. Therefore, arguments that are based on an understanding of liberal democracy that functions primarily through established political parties … are directly at odds with a radical politics that has rejected establishment politics and so will never be able to explore their political strengths or adequately interpret their lessons. (p. 77)
In continuing this line of argument, Fenton also highlights the ways in which such theorizations fall short of understanding the subjective experience of politics. In drawing from the work of Chantal Mouffe, Fenton argues that politics are marked by dissymmetry and agonism and that ‘politics is about everyone’ (p. 6). As such, how can a contemporary transnational radical politics reconcile the need to recognize the unique political subjectivities of those who feel a deep sense of injustice while also coalescing around the need to effect objective change within existing political structures? Fenton argues for a careful distinction between ‘being political’ and what she refers to as the politics of being. The politics of being incorporates the subjective experience and affective response to injustice.
By taking account of these considerations, Fenton concludes her argument with what all of this means for radical politics going forward. She challenges us to focus our attention on power – both where it resides and who wields it. Yes, digital technologies may be empowering for the individual, but those same technologies are enmeshed within a system of power that may ultimately constrain our ability to effect real social and political change. Furthermore, she argues for the need to rethink our political institutions – both those that exist as well as those that need to be built for a radical politics to be sustainable.
Her overall argument, as well as the questions she poses, deserve critical attention, and not just by those working within critical media studies. Fenton draws from broader fields of social and political theory to develop an argument that will challenge scholars across a variety of disciplines. Whatever one’s own predisposition or understanding of the ways in which digital technologies have been used in political practice, Fenton’s work is one that deserves to be reckoned with – not just for its deft critique of extant theorizations but also for its normative contribution to how radical politics can move forward.