An interview with Florian S\u00fcssenguth, Fellow Researcher at the HIIG in 2014. Florian is a\u00a0PHD candidate at the Institute of Sociology at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\u00e4t, M\u00fcnchen.\u00a0In his doctoral thesis he explores the German discourse on Netzpolitik (net politics and net\u00a0policy). The interview was conducted by Jeanette Hofmann.<\/p>\n
Jeanette Hofmann: In 2014 we saw a growing number of references to the digital society. What does this new label refer to?<\/p>\n
Florian S\u00fcssenguth: It refers to two entwined questions: How do digital media change the\u00a0structure of society and how can we make sense of these shifts? The label of digital society is a\u00a0tool that can aid us in our attempts to chart a course through social phenomena once familiar\u00a0but now turned terra incognita due to digitisation. As scientists we have to avoid the trap of\u00a0confusing the map with the territory, though. The relevant question is not whether our society\u00a0is truly a digital society but what comes into focus when this conceptual lens is used and more\u00a0importantly, what remains hidden in blind spots? Comparing the digital society label to others\u00a0\u2013 web 2.0, industry 4.0, big data, just to name a few \u2013 is about empirically reconstructing\u00a0their very real effects. The question then is, how do the implicit assumptions contained in the\u00a0various labels affect politics, organisations or the public sphere? It is an approach, which is\u00a0more in line with Foucault\u2019s notion of positivism than Popper\u2019s.<\/p>\n
JH: What characterises the digital society and what do you see\u00a0as major differences to the analogue society (should that be\u00a0its predecessor)?<\/p>\n
FS: I think it is indeed looking for the opposite of a popular term that can teach us quite a lot\u00a0about it. In the same way that the web 2.0 retroactively invented the web 1.0 to make sense,\u00a0the analogue society is twinned with the digital society. This is why, as social scientists, we\u00a0should ask what practical purpose the distinction between the digital and the analogue society\u00a0serves today instead of trying to identify the precise point in history when one changed into\u00a0the other. We then see that talking about the analogue society enables imagining an unambiguous\u00a0past, undisturbed by digital media, which constitutes a mode of reflection in an unclear\u00a0digital present. Paradoxically the image of the analogue society, from this perspective, is not\u00a0about the past itself, but part of strategies aiming to manage the future in times of crumbling\u00a0routines.<\/p>\n
JH: The spread of digitisation seems to be accompanied by pervasive\u00a0surveillance, be it by governments or by corporations.\u00a0Is the connection between digitisation, control and monitoring\u00a0an inevitable part of the digital society or can you imagine a\u00a0different future that would respect traditional principles of\u00a0autonomy and privacy?<\/p>\n
FS: We definitely see that some ways of maintaining the boundaries between social spheres\u00a0lose their effectiveness in times of ubiquitous digital media. Being separated by distance no\u00a0longer prevents us from affecting each other. Sensors, digital storage and means to analyse\u00a0data begin to transform the form of social memory. At the same time, the metaphor of the network,\u00a0which has gained much prominence within the social sciences and in public discussion,\u00a0contains one aspect that is often overlooked: a network is not about connecting everything\u00a0to everything. Its shape is determined by its holes instead, the possible but not formed connections.\u00a0Individuality, autonomy and privacy are all concepts that do not imply being entirely disconnected. We have to understand autonomy and privacy as social forms, which regulate\u00a0how persons are included in society. They themselves are products of historical constellations.\u00a0Thus, privacy is neither an unchangeable part of human nature nor predetermined by the media.\u00a0So, while I doubt that traditional forms of autonomy and privacy will survive unchanged\u00a0in a digital society, they are a valuable resource in the search for new modes of managing\u00a0being connected in a way that carries positive connotations such as solidarity, community or\u00a0appreciation.<\/p>\n
JH: Speaking of modes of being connected, are we, the people,\u00a0shaping the transformations associated with the digital society\u00a0and, do you expect digital societies to preserve the idea of
\ndemocratic self-determination?<\/p>\n
FS: It is my privilege as a scientist to have the freedom to answer the first question with\u00a0anything but a resounding yes. For a politician this would be incommensurably more problematic\u00a0to do. The tragedy of the political system is that it can only conceive of itself as being\u00a0the centre of society. Theories of modern society reveal that it has no centre, though. It is\u00a0better understood as a heterogeneous network of different modes of order; in other words the\u00a0political system presents itself as the keystone that integrates society although it actually is\u00a0not anymore integrated via the consensus of the people. My research into net politics shows\u00a0that the counterfactual self-description of the political system is able to adapt itself to a digital\u00a0society so far. Politicians and political organisations successfully experiment with forms of\u00a0participation and representation through digital tools. The rise of the Pirate Party, a result of\u00a0the widespread criticism of the digital incompetence of politicians, shows how hard it is even for critics to escape the gravitational pull of the democratic logic. This logic assumes that societies govern themselves through consensus or majority voting. Getting back to the question\u00a0as to whether I think we, the people, shape the digital society? To quote the Simpsons: \u201cShort\u00a0answer, \u2018yes\u2019 with an \u2018if\u2019. Long answer, \u2018no\u2019 with a \u2018but\u2019\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n
JH: Do you expect a shift in the power balance between governments,\u00a0citizens and corporations?<\/p>\n
FS: There will definitely be shifts as the playing field itself is changing. We will have to take a\u00a0very close look at the interplay between the increased mobility of data due to its commodification\u00a0and the specific forms of data hunger, which arise when established social practices ranging\u00a0from private life to highly specialised fields are confronted with the possibilities offered\u00a0by digital media. Securitisation and neoliberalism are prime frameworks for investigating\u00a0potential digital power shifts. Yet, we should also take a closer look at the sciences\u2019 desire for\u00a0more data or the potential of, for instance, location-based services to turn romantic love and\u00a0family life into a digital panopticism.<\/p>\n
JH: How should social scientists investigate the pending digital\u00a0society?<\/p>\n
FS: No phenomenon we study exists in a vacuum. However, this does not mean that\u00a0everything is connected to everything else. Against this background, a theoretical and methodological\u00a0framework is needed, which is able to trace how digital media transform the modes\u00a0of connection and disconnection between economic, legal, political and other contexts. To\u00a0pursue this aim, we have to conceive of the digital society as a productive algorithm, which\u00a0allows us to innovatively recombine the data we generate in our studies. Doing so reveals\u00a0forms of managing boundaries and drawing distinctions, which are opaque to the social actors\u00a0themselves. Our contribution to solving the challenges of digitisation then does neither\u00a0consist in the flat retelling of our observations nor in unmasking strategies of dealing with the\u00a0digital revolution as inadequate. Our task rather consists in making visible how many different\u00a0and often mutually exclusive ways of creatively dealing with the uncertainty of the digital future\u00a0exists and in explaining how it is possible that they all coexist within the same society.<\/p>\n
Photo: Richard P J Lambert<\/a>,\u00a0CC BY 2.0<\/p>\n This Interview is\u00a0from the current\u00a0annual\u00a0research\u00a0magazine of\u00a0the\u00a0Alexander\u00a0von Humboldt\u00a0Institute\u00a0for\u00a0Internet\u00a0and\u00a0Society, encore 2014. Read the magazine online<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n