Political ideas of the network society: why digitalization research needs critical conceptual analysis

Abstract

In this article, I argue for an interpretive approach to digitalization research that analyzes the concepts, narratives, and belief systems in digitalization debates. I illustrate this methodological proposal by assessing the spread of network ideas. Many political actors and digitalization researchers follow network ideas, e.g. by claiming that the rise of a network society must lead to network governance. In contrast to this narrative, I argue that there are multiple visions of the digital society, each of which follows a specific pattern of epistemology, social imaginary, and political proposals. These competing self-interpretations must be investigated by digitalization research in order to map and evaluate different pathways into a digital society. For doing so, critical conceptual analysis draws on political theory, critical conceptual history, and the sociology of knowledge. It offers two major benefits for digitalization research. Firstly, it provides a systematic overview of competing governance rationalities in the digital society, enabling a critical evaluation of their potentials and proposals. Secondly, it enhances the methodological rigor of digitalization research by reviewing the narratives researchers themselves tell. I substantiate these claims by analyzing and historicizing the above network narrative. Tracing it back to cybernetics, I show that it has been used multiple times in efforts to reshape the way we think about society and politics, including our concepts of subjectivity, power, and governance.

Understanding democratic conflicts: The failures of agonistic theory

“…This endeavor means to take the interpretations of actors in conflict seriously. But it also entails that social scientist themselves reflect on their own concepts and narratives of conflict (August, 2021a). 3.…”

“…This endeavor means to take the interpretations of actors in conflict seriously. But it also entails that social scientist themselves reflect on their own concepts and narratives of conflict (August, 2021a). Practices of conflict regulation : Agonistic pluralism is particularly weak when asked to put forward concrete examples of institutionalizing conflicts.…”

“…Teney et al, 2014;van Hootegem et al, 2021;de Wilde et al, 2019). Researchers should therefore reflect and control for the effects of their own concepts and narratives (August, 2021a).…”