Technocultural Change, Education and New Configurations of Subjectivity. Mario Hernández Chirino

7/30/2019 Technocultural Change, Education and New Configurations of Subjectivity. Mario Hernndez Chirino

1/188

1

TECHNOCULTURAL CHANGE, EDUCATION AND NEW

CONFIGURATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY

MARIO ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ CHIRINO

Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

(PhD)

TheUniversity of Sheffield

School of Education

December 2005


2/188

2

Acknowledgements

I whish to express my gratitude to those who have help and supported me in completingthis thesis. In particular, my thanks to my supervisor Professor Paul Standish. Mygratitude is also due to Professor Wilfred Carr and Professor John Nixon for alwayshaving the predisposition to help and advice at any unexpected circumstances.

A mis dos mujeres con amor:

A Blanca por nuestra mutua compaa en los tropiezos y avances que esta tarea nosavanzo.

A Ulalume por el afecto y ligereza que siempre t presencia da.

A las dos, por nuestras convivencias en tierras lejanas.


3/188

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................6

GENERAL INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................7

THE PROBLEMATIC AND THE ARGUMENT..............................................................................................7RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...........................................................................................................................7STRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARGUMENT ...........................................................................8

CHAPTER I:: TTHHEE RREESSHHAAPPIINNGG OOFF SSOOCCIIEETTYY:: AA CCOONNTTEEXXTTUUAALL UUNNDDEERRSSTTAANNDDIINNGG OOFF TTHHEEIINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONNAALL AANNDD GGLLOOBBAALL EECCOONNOOMMYY,, AANNDD OOFF CCHHAALLLLEENNGGEESS TTOO EEDDUUCCAATTIIOONN .11

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................11DEFINING CAPITALIST RESTRUCTURING..............................................................................................13THE RESTRUCTURING OF CAPITALISM, TWO INTERLINKED PERSPECTIVES:THE FORDIST TO POST-FORDIST AND THE FLEXIBLE SPECIALIZATION THEORIST..................................................................14

A) The Regulation School Theory .....................................................................................................15B) The Flexible Specialisation..........................................................................................................17Post-Fordism, Globalisation and Network Oriented Technologies..................................................19The Regulation School and Flexible Specialisation: Some Further Considerations ........................20C) The Network Enterprise as Another Pathway out of Fordism.................................................23Some Considerations on Castells Network Society Approach.........................................................29Cultural consequences of informational capitalism..........................................................................31

THE RESTRUCTURING OF PRACTICES AND INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION...........................32EXTENDING THE HORIZON IN UNDERSTANDING TECHNOLOGY...........................................................38

CCHHAAPPTTEERR IIII:: AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEE IINNQQUUIIRRIIEESS IINN UUNNDDEERRSSTTAANNDDIINNGG TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGYY ...............40

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN .....................................................................................................................................40TTHHEE LLIIMMIITTAATTIIOONNSS OOFF TTEECCHHNNOOLLOOGGIICCAALL DDEETTEERRMMIINNIISSMM ......................................................................41

The Nature of Information ................................................................................................................45RESTRUCTURING THE STRUCTURES OF EVERYDAY LIFE ...................................................................48

Postmodern Culture as Result of Capitalist Restructuring...............................................................49QUESTIONING TECHNOLOGY AND HEIDEGGER ...................................................................................50

Heidegger's Reference to a Reductionist View of Technology, a Series of Definitions of Technology.

..........................................................................................................................................................51Enframing as a Challenging Claim in Heidegger.............................................................................56The Dangers of Modern Technology ................................................................................................57The Imprinting of Thought by Technology and Calculative Rational Assertiveness ........................60Poiesis and Resistance to Enframing, Heidegger and Beyond .........................................................63

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................67

CCHHAAPPTTEERRIIIIII:: .........................................................................................................................................70

QQUUEESSTTIIOONNIINNGG PPOOSSTTMMOODDEERRNN CCUULLTTUURREE TTHHRROOUUGGHH EEXXPPLLOORRIINNGG HHOOWW

TTEECCHHNNOOCCUULLTTUURRAALL AASSSSEEMMBBLLAAGGEESS IINNTTEERRCCOONNNNEECCTT WWIITTHHIINN NNEEWW MMEEDDIIAAEENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTSS AANNDD IIDDEENNTTIITTYY CCOONNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN...................................................................70

INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................70POSTMODERN CULTURE AND THE PRE-EMINENCE OF IDENTITY ..............................................................72THE NEW POSTMODERN COMMUNICATIONAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................75

The Shifting Media Environments.....................................................................................................75The New Hyper-media Communicational Environment ..................................................................76Characteristic Elements of New Hyper-media Communicational Environment...............................81

The concept of interactivity and new media................................................................................................. 82New media and the user-to-usermodel of interactivity. ......................................................................... 86New media and the user-to-documents model of interactivity................................................................ 87New media and the user-to-system interactivity ..................................................................................... 87

The concept of hypertextuality: Interactivity and navigation... .................................................................... 93The concept of virtuality .............................................................................................................................. 98

CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................................................100

CHAPTER IV:........................................................................................................................................103

TOWARDS A POSSIBILITY OF A CRITICAL THEORY AND EMANCIPATORY

EDUCATION IN CYBERSPACE: A DEBATE..................................................................................103


4/188

4

OPTIMISM OF THE POTENTIAL OF CYBERSPACE, AN INTRODUCTION ...............................................103

A DEBATE ON THE EDUCATIONAL POTENTIAL OF CYBERSPACE....................................111

AN INITIAL DISCUSSION OF THE VIABILITY OF CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN CYBERSPACE....................112A) Characteristic features of critical pedagogy within its modernist space of enclosure and thepressing impediments imposed in practice of critical pedagogy in such contexts. .........................112B) Postmodern spaces emerging with information society, cyberspace.....................................116C) Themes that provide fruitful bases for generating new possibilities for critical pedagogy in

cyberspace. .....................................................................................................................................117Some concluding questions in Lankshear, Peters, et al. contributions...........................................119

ILAN GUR-ZEEVRESPONSIVE CRITIQUE TO CRITICAL EDUCATIONAL THEORIST TO THECHALLENGE POSED BY CYBERSPACE..................................................................................................122

A) The difficulty of critical thinkers in justifying optimism about the possibilities of theeducational potential of cyberspace, such difficulty is underlined by emphasising optimistic

affinities between critical cyberoptimists and those who are coming from right wing orientations,

thus condemning an inability of the critical thinkers to mark a dividing line between them and the

right-wing cyberoptimists (Ibid:215).............................................................................................122B) The argument that It is wrong to separate critical pedagogy, critical literacy, or criticaleducation and cyberspace from the issues of capitalist globalisation (Ibid) in other words he

considers that they do not face their cyberoptimism with a critical reconstruction of globalising

capitalism, its technologies, and the culture industry.....................................................................123C) The problem of an unresolved question in the existence of a gap and tension between themodern contexts of classical critical pedagogy that can be remitted to a modern manifestation of

the enlightenment educational project, and that of the postmodern concepts introduced in the idea

of the possibilities of critical education in cyberspace. ..................................................................123Transcendence in Counter-Education Education ...........................................................................123

Ilan Gur-Zeev Understanding of Cyberspace................................................................................126Being true to a discussion...............................................................................................................128

SOME CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE DEBATE..........................................................................................133

CHAPTER V: .........................................................................................................................................139

ENTERPRISE CULTURE AND THE LEARNING SOCIETY: A NEW EDUCATIONALREALITY................................................................................................................................................139

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................139THE NEO-LIBERAL GOVERNANCE OF WELFARE AND EDUCATION:RESPONSIBILISING THE SELF.141LEARNING SOCIETY AND THE LOGIC OF BARE LIFE...........................................................................150THE LEARNING SOCIETY AND TECHNE OF POLITICAL POWER..........................................................153

Instrumentality and Causality: the Definition of Technology and a Nexus to the EntrepreneurialSelf ..................................................................................................................................................154The Essence of Technology and Life as an Object..........................................................................156

THE REFUSAL TO CERTAIN FORMS OF GOVERNMENT AND DISSATISFACTION WITH WHAT IS..........161CHALLENGES TO NORMALIZING EDUCATION IN THE LEARNING SOCIETY .......................................163

The Meaning of the Idea of Bildung and its Classical Roots..........................................................164The relevancy of bildung today .................................................................................................................. 166

The Project of Critical Theory and Bildung ...................................................................................167Some Conclusions: The Aporias of Critical Educational Theory and Critical Pedagogy in the Age

of the Learning Society ...................................................................................................................168Power, the trivialization of critique and instrumentality............................................................................ 168

Power.................................................................................................................................................... 168The trivialization of critique.................................................................................................................. 169Instrumentality... ................................................................................................................................... 170

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................172R E F E R E N C E .................................................................................................................................176


5/188

5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Essential Shifts in Media Environments and its Influence to Subjectivity.78

Table 2: A Model Based on Four Levels and Dimensions of Interactivity...83

Table 3: Three Different Types of Interactivity.85

Table 4: Three Different Types of Interactivity. Through Old and New Media ..90

Table 5: Communicational Environments and its Uses & Possibilities100

Table 6:Visions of Technology, Society and its impact on Possibilities for Education108

Table 7:Cultural Changes In The Stance of Knowledge..119

Table 8:Book Navigational System.136

Table 9: Transformation of Society and Culture158


6/188

6

ABSTRACT

A central issue that has been taken into consideration in here is that of technological

innovation and socio-cultural change that has brought according to some analyst the so-called information age. An initial examination is then directed to the historicalquestioning in respect to changes in the structure and restructuring of society that haveoccurred from the beginnings of the 70s, and which have lead to what is known as theinformation/network society.

In front of such a situation this study is aimed to understand technocultural changes andits impacts, which are taking place in society and culture, and are signifying a newresponse from education and a challenge to its prospective theoretical and practicaldevelopments. Thus then in such context, the central argument unfolds around how theimpact of such technocultural changes reflects not only on the emergence of a newsocio-economical structure, but also how it has effects on the emergence of new social

subjectivities, that unfold among the new hybrid communicational texture ofpostmodern cultural settings.

In order to accomplish these aims and arguments there is an acknowledgment of thecomplexity of such an emerging historical process, thus then the present thesis willdepart from a multidisciplinary perspective that will comprise economy, sociology,media theory and philosophy. So to offer a framework that will give understandingabout technocultural changes, its effects on new reconfigurations of subjectivities andthe signifying new response from education and its prospective challenges.

The arrangement of such a work is structured within the following thematic structure:

1) The reshaping of society: The informational and global economy as the spectrum ofthe challenges to education, 2) Alternative inquiries in understanding technology, 3)Postmodern culture, new hypermedia environments and identity conformation, 4) Adebate concerning the possibility of critical theory and emancipatory education incyberspace, and lastly, 5) Enterprise culture and the learning society: A new educationalreality.

The following tasks will be pursued: a)The development of a theoretical framework forunderstanding resent restructuring of capitalism and its consequence, b) The conceptualanalysis of what has been called the information/network society and thelearning/knowledge society in a context of a globalized world. c) An analyticalcomprehension of emerging communicational environments and new media and itsnexus to postmodern culture, d) The linking of technocultural phenomena and emergingnew configurations of subjectivity.


7/188

7

General Introduction

The Problematic and the argument

It is commonly accepted that since the beginnings of the 1970s many socio-culturalchanges have occurred. Interpretations of these events tend to rely on the assumption

that such changes have occurred as a result of technological innovation - the newinformational and communicational technologies. Their impact on society and culturehas been as heralding a new era, which has been designated as the information age. Thisthesis seeks to offer some understanding of these technocultural changes and theirimpact. These are changes in society and culture that require a response from education,presenting it with a challenge at the levels both of its theorisation of aims and of itsmeaning of practice.

Acknowledging the complexity of such a situation, the present thesis sets out from amultidisciplinary perspective, a perspective that will encompass economy, sociology,media theory and philosophy. The central argument unfolds around the question of howthe impact of such technocultural change not only reflects on the emergence of a newsocio-economical structure, the so-called information society, but also has effects on theemergence of new subjectivities, which unfold among new cultural settings. Inparticular the thesis pursues the thought that such economical and culturalreconfigurations demand a response in terms of how education is to be rethought.

To develop this line of argument, the following tasks are undertaken in this thesis:

a) A theoretical framework for understanding the recent restructuring of capitalismand its consequence is developed.

b) The information/network society and the emergence of the learning/knowledgesociety in the context of a globalized world are analysed.

c) Emergent communicational environments and new media, with their nexus inpostmodern culture, are described, and their significance interpreted.

d) Connections between technocultural phenomena and emerging new configurationsof subjectivity are explored.

Research questions

In the light of these considerations, my research questions are:

1. How is education responding to socio-cultural change shaped by new social

structures, such as the network/learning society and the introduction of newinformational and communicational technologies?

2. How are educational theory and practice responding with regard to new subjectivitiesthat have developed as a consequence of techno-cultural change change with effectson the acquisition of knowledge and the appraisal of reality?


8/188

8

3. How do emergent subjectivity structures relate and perform in the context of newinformational and communicational environments such as the Internet? And to whatextent can education benefit from such knowledge?

4. In this context, what possibility is there of progress in education?

Structure and development of the argument

Chapter One, working within an analytical understanding of the restructuring ofcapitalism, offers a contextual account of the informational and global economy as thespectrum that configures responses from education. I explain, via political economy, therestructuring of the capitalist processes. This grounds key themes related to such socio-economic transitions by describing theoretical positions with regard to conceivingdifferent pathways out of Fordism. It does this by identifying three major theoreticalinterpretations of these phenomena: the regulation school theory, the flexiblespecialization theory, and the network enterprise. Such interpretations are to beconsidered as the restructuring strategies of capitalism. They give way to a networkedglobal/informational capitalism.

Taking as an example of the impact of the restructuring processes of capitalism, Idevelop an understanding of the restructuring of practices in institutions of highereducation by focusing on one of the main trends that has decisively shaped universities.This is a narrowing of direction that I identify as the virtualization of universities. Myaccount highlights the enterprise culture and its entrepreneurial spirit. This requiresattention to the important role of new information and communicational technologies inuniversities. It prompts the revaluation of distance learning and its new form in e-learning. Additionally the analysis involves considering impact on academia, at the verypoint where it enters new processes of academic capitalism and commodification, withthe emergence of new managerial structures.

Chapter Two describes different approaches to understanding the technological change,technological innovation and capitalist restructuring discussed in the previous chapter. Itconsiders the extent to which standard approaches to these matters tend to have alimited view of technology: they cultivate a common view that derives fromassumptions of technological determinism. The central aim for this chapter is todescribe and elaborate an alternative perspective to such deterministic views oftechnology.

To do so I present more complex accounts of information and technology. I shall do thisby inquiring into the significance of technological change within a context thatacknowledges the complexity and contingency of technological impact, linking socio-political and cultural issues to philosophical questions. This will include examining the

significance of Martin Heideggers essay The Question Concerning Technology. Inthis way I shall attempt to overcome the predominant, determinist, oversimplifiedinterpretation of technology and information.

Chapter Three continues the themes of the previous chapter by focusing on the techno-cultural approach to the issues of technological innovation and change, centering on


9/188

9

particular aspects of postmodern culture and its manifestations in high technologycapitalist restructuring, a restructuring in which the production of culture has becomeintegrated into commodity production. The aim is to outline emergent transformationsin this new communicational environment. This is a new region of experience that, as aresult of capitalist restructuring, links technoculture and postmodernity..

Emphasis will be placed on how such phenomena help in understanding theconfiguration of subjectivity that has been developed under postmodern culture.Technocultural transitions will be analyzed in the context of the following topics: a) theemerging new media environments and their characteristic elements, b) mediaenvironments and changes in human/computer interaction, and c) media environments,changes in social epistemology, and the conformation of multiple subjectivities. Thesesteps will lead to an account of a postmodern hybridized communicational environment.This will in turn lay the way for a discussion of the educational possibilities of ICT inthis context.

Chapter Four critically examines a central debate regarding the educational value of theInternet. The chapter explores and reviews a debate that has developed around thisissue. Some authors focus on issues of methods and practices of teaching, highlighting

the novel characteristics of new technologies such as cyberspace and hypermedia andtheir potential for an innovative critical pedagogy. Others contest this. This chapteroutlines the aims, claims and arguments of the parties to this debate.

In the First Part the arguments are developed in four sections: a) characteristic featuresof critical pedagogy within its modernist context, b) the postmodern context thatemerges with the advent of the information society, c) the examination of four themesrelating to new possibilities for critical pedagogy in cyberspace, and d) ideas for thetheoretical and practical extension of critical pedagogy in cyberspace. In the SecondPart attention is given to the response to these arguments that is offered by Ilan Gur-Zeev (a response that is also supported by other scholars). His argument, which isstrongly influenced by the Frankfurt School, is concerned with the ways in which

postmodern thinking is embedded in a new trend in critical pedagogy. The structure ofthe argument has three stages: first, it is claimed that critical thinkers have difficulty injustifying their optimism about the educational potential of cyberspace; second, it isshown that there are difficulties in detaching critical education or critical pedagogy froma cyberspace framed by capitalist globalisation; and c) it is argued that there are tensionsbetween postmodernism and an educational project that originates in the thought of theEnlightenment.

Chapter Five goes further in examining the problematic of the restructuring of societywithin contemporary global capitalism. It outlines the inherently ideological discourseof neo-liberalism. This is shown to be manifest in educational contexts within theirdeference to enterprise culture, a culture that reveres economic growth and development

and fetishises the concepts of: excellence, technological literacy, skills training,performance and quality. Emphasis is placed on describing the connections betweentechnology, education and subjectivity. The chapter continues the theme of previouschapters in emphasizing these connections but expresses this now in terms of therelationship between the self and power, framed by the concept of governmentality. Theidea of governmentality helps us to understand the rationalities and technologiesthrough which people conducting themselves and their relationships to other. I argue


10/188

10

that neo-liberal governance, with its responsabilising of the self, is connected with thedevelopment of the entrepreneurial self. This is manifested in the intensification ofmoral regulation characteristic of neo-liberal welfare and education policies. Thechapter comes to an end by taking a philosophical standpoint in order to discern andcritique the impact of neo-liberal governance (and the rise of enterprise culture ineducation) in the context of the entrepreneurial practices of the self associated with thelearning society. The effects of this governance are considered in terms of theinstrumental logic of bare biological life. This is related in turn to the widerproblematic of biopolitics by way of a discussion of the techne of political power andthe technology of the self. This makes it possible finally to depict some of thechallenges for a critical theory of education.


11/188

11

Chapter I:: TThhee RReesshhaappiinngg ooff SSoocciieettyy:: AA CCoonntteexxttuuaall

UUnnddeerrssttaannddiinngg ooff tthhee IInnffoorrmmaattiioonnaall aanndd GGlloobbaall EEccoonnoommyy,,

aanndd ooffCChhaalllleennggeess ttoo EEdduuccaattiioonn

Introduction

One of the aims of the research questions guiding this study concerns the extent towhich information technologies are causes or rather correlates of the changes takingplace in society and culture,and of how far this presents a challenge to education. Thisis a contested arena, in which there are different approaches and interpretationsregarding the impact of new information technologies on society and the age ofinformation. Technological innovation and socio-cultural change in the so-calledinformation age must be questioned from a multi-referenced standpoint. In this chapter Ishall concentrate on a historical approach to changes in the structure and(re)organization of society that have occurred from the beginnings of the 1970s and thathave lead to what is known as informational capitalism or what more commonly isreferred to as the information society.

My approach will begin from the conceptual problematic of what might be termed the restructuring of capitalism in order to examine different accounts that explain socio-cultural change and its relation to technological innovation and development within amayor context of political economy. By turning to the idea of the restructuring ofcapitalism we can broach significant issues in respect to a novel, socio-economicdynamics that can explain and reveal an understanding of the reshaping of the materialbasis of society. I have chosen to consider matters in relation to a new fluency andflexibility in the structure of society, the way that this determines different forms oforganization of institutions (among them higher education), and the way this exertsinfluence on different lifestyles and on the reshaping subjectivity structures.

I should acknowledge, however, that this initial stance also has its limitations. So, to

begin with, it is important to underline that there are diverse interpretations of what isbeing called the restructuring of capital as there are different phases concretized orreflected in specific models of accumulation. To talk about the advantages andlimitations of such an approach we must first clarify the way that the restructuring ofcapital is a historically-cyclic or repetitive process that concretizes in specific modes ofaccumulation - Fordist, post-Fordist, etc. Most importantly we must emphasise thatthere are different interpretations of the significance and outcomes of such restructuringprocesses.

In this chapter I shall set out some of the dominant interpretations of the unfoldingrestructuring process of the world capitalist system. Such interpretations privilege theidea of the information revolution, and by doing so they give centrality to their analysis

of the importance of technology in ushering in new forms of economic production, newforms of social interaction that represent a transition from one distinct phase ofcapitalist development to a new phase.

This chapter considers the following perspectives: a) the regulation school theory,,b)the value of the perspective offlexible specialization in explaining shifts from the


12/188

12

Fordist regime of accumulation to the post-Fordist model, and c) the idea of theNetwork Society , as developed by Manuel Castells.

Some of the issues between these perspectives relate to the restructuring of society, tocrisis, to continuity and to change in the global information society. I differentiate twoaspects in their perspectives:

AA)) Some theoretical positions typically identify epochal shifts (the informationage), identifying radical changes brought about by technology. For instance,information revolutionaries understand such shifts as transitions fromIndustrialism to Post-Industrialism(Bell, D. 1973:76).

B) Some theorisations argue for a strong continuity in the capitalist system andconcentrate on identifying changes within the system. This is the case inCastells (2000a) interpretation and use of the category of Mode ofDevelopment. A Mode of Development represents a shift from industrialism toinformationalism, but this position stresses continuity in the Mode ofProduction of the capitalist system.

This is why the core of the debate between information society theories has to do withwhether there has been a systemic change or whether instead what has emerged is morelike a continuation of established capitalist relations. Considering all the above, thecriteria for reviewing these interpretations will be linked to my research questions andaims. From this, it can be seen that such interpretations are useful to a certain extent tomy inquiry and aims. Next I will mention what I expect to gain from these initialanalyses.

From this general perspective I shall be able to build a framework relating technologicalinnovation and social cultural change. This will provide accounts of different pathwaysfor understanding where the trends stand and where the challenges come from. This willbe useful in determining educations whereabouts and its future and possible responses

to these issues in the context of the information society. On the strength of this, onemain question that will emerge is the significance of the restructuring of highereducation in the context of these competing theorisations.

Another outcome from this framework and its analysis is that I will claim that thereconfiguration of subjectivity structures can be related among other things to differentdistinctive lifestyles coming from cultural displacement.

Finally, in this chapter, I will question the limitations behind interpretations thatprivilege an economical dimension and that give very little space for reflection andcritical awareness on important philosophical and cultural issues, issues that can lead tofurther understandings of the shaping processes of information and communicational

technologies and their effects on educational thinking and pedagogical practices.


13/188

13

Defining capitalist restructuring

Capitalism hinges on the elaboration of an economic system in which goods andservices are traded in markets. In this sense it can be considered as a combination ofeconomic practices that refer to the social relationship between owners (capitalists) andworkers (labour power). These practices can be seen as an ever-expanding network ofmaterial exchanges which have become trans-societal. Nowadays this spans practicallyall nations.

Capitalist economies have shown an erratic but sustained tendency towards economicgrowth, in a circuit of capital that typically involves different moments: production,circulation and the reproduction of labour power. This circuit of accumulation has beenfacilitated more recently by the development of computer networks, satellite broadcastand different cybernetic devices. Nevertheless, because of various contradictions, thiscircuit of high technology can also lead to a circulation of struggles.

Capitalism has had different historical phases, with different structural arrangementsthat have reflected the historical adaptability of this system. There different phases ofcapitalist expansion have been interpreted theoretically as imperialism, as

modernization, as dependency, as post-colonialism, as world system.

What we could call informational capitalism can be distinguished as the latest particularstructural arrangement, and this particular development is, according to ManuelCastells, the informational mode of development. This is characterized by a flexiblemode of accumulation1, which brings about a new economic condition: theinformational and global economy reshapes the material basis of society.

Frank Webster concurs with this view:

Todays global economy represents the spread and growth of capitalist waysof behaviour witness the increased use of market mechanisms, of private

rather than public provision, of profitability as the raison dtre oforganizations, of wage labour, and of the ability to pay principle as thedeterminant of goods and services supply. In short, the global networksociety in which we find ourselves today expresses the continuation transmutation if one prefers- of long-held capitalist principles (Webster, F.2002:270).

The above consideration can reveal that capitalism, on any account, has socialimplications that extend beyond the economic sphere alone. This also underscores theargument that capitalism has undergone a period of rapid change. If this differs fromother developmental stages, however, such principles are applied in a greater range andwith an accelerated intensification. This is evident, for instance, in the post-Fordist

system of flexible accumulation (a mode of development which arranges andorganizes wealth) in which more and more things become commodities, the value of

1 One initial understanding of a mode of accumulation refers to the dominant way in which capitalist inthe leading branches of economic activity make profits. Hoogvelt (2001:44) But also according to Dyer-Witheford (2000:55) RReeggiimmee ooff aaccccuummuullaattiioonn consists of intermeshed orderings of wage relations,consumption norms, and state intervention that synchronize the overall social prerequisites for theextraction and realization of surplus-value..


14/188

14

which is determined by their exchange rather than by their use. But there is no change inthe principles themselves. Therefore, the features of capitalist continuity are tooinsistently evident (a mode of production that pursues wealth).

This new global economy must be seen then as more than just another layer ofeconomic activity on top of the existing production process. Rather, it must beunderstood as a restructuring of all economic and socio-cultural activities based ongoals and values introduced by the aggressive exploitation of the new productivitypotentials of advanced information technology. In this context it is relevant to thisunderstanding to emphasise that the self-expansive development of capitalism and itsdifferent phases have resulted in recurring crises of disequilibrium. This has lead to arestructuring and, at the same time, leads us to a questioning of what it is that theinformational capitalist restructuring phase is responding to and what can it mean forfurther inquiries concerning the restructuring of the educational system itself.

I will start then from the argument that capitalism has undergone a period of rapidchange, in which change is explained in terms of a dynamic of recurring crises andrestructuring of social and economic arrangements. This perspective recognizes that theactual informational global economy has been created under the drive of restructuring

capitalist enterprise. By the 1970s capitalism had reached the limits of its ownexpansion. Furthermore, the consideration that is at the base of this reorganization is thepervasive implementation of technological innovation, clustering around theconvergence of computing and telecommunication.

The course taken by this socio-economic phenomenon has taken different directions andundergone various transformations. Interpretations regarding the restructuring ofcapitalism and its crises focus on explanations that either: a) demonstrate that they arisefrom internal barriers, such as productivity, norms of efficiency, or other economicmatters, or b) concentrate on circuits of accumulation and resistance, taking into accountthe impasse of rival social forces - that is, the struggle between capital (discipline andcontrol) and labour force (opposition and resistance to discipline and control).

The restructuring of capitalism, two interlinked perspectives: The Fordist to post-

Fordist and the Flexible Specialization theorist

One first thing to acknowledge is that there are diverse viewpoints in relation toexplaining the essential characteristics that can account for the radical changes that inthe last decades have been happening and that commonly are referred as a secondindustrial revolution or a information revolution. Scholars such as Daniel Bell (1973)have defined these transitions in terms of a transfer from industrial to post-industrialsociety. Others speak of a transition from the modern to the postmodern (Harvey, D.1990), and others still, such as Fukuyama (1992), have even mentioned the end of

history and the triumph of the market economy.

I shall begin with two interlinked perspectives, with a common focus on the transitionfrom Fordism to post-Fordism, or putting it in Ankie Hoogvelts (2001) words, as twopathways out of Fordism. The first is the regulation school theory, which describes ashift in the capitalist mode of accumulation and centres in structures, principles andeconomic mechanisms. The second is known as the flexible specialization theory,


15/188

15

which, instead of centring on general structural tendencies in economic and social life,focuses on the arena of production.

A) The Regulation School Theory

Key contributors to the Regulation School Theory of political economy are the Frenchintellectuals Michel Aglietta (1979) and Alain Lipietz (1987). With origins in Marxisteconomic thinking, their work has lead eventually to a departure from Marxism,[taking] its exit by an opposite door: one marked not by despair at the oppressive powerof capitals new technologies but by enchantment with their liberatory potentials Dyer-Witheford (2000:55)

At the centre of their arguments, they assert that capitalism repeatedly overcomes itsinternal contradictions by generating successive regimes of accumulation; in this sensethey try to explain a paradox within the system in which there are periods of crisis andperiods of stability. This depends, they claim, upon two factors: first, the developmentof a mode of regulation as a force of systemic cohesion, which is based on theinstitutional forms, procedures and habits which either coerce or persuade private agentsto conform to its schema Lipietz (1987:32-33). By doing this, the regulation process

establishes a complex of cultural norms, habits, and laws that ensure the reproductionand accumulation that synchronizes the overall social prerequisites for the extractionand realization of surplus-value. It also involves the integration of a viabletechnological paradigm that will require the instigation of technological innovation.

The theorists of the Regulation Schoolnoted that by the end of the 1960s and the early1970s Fordism had encountered a serious crisis and had begun to falter. Because of thisbreakdown of Fordism there was a restructuring of the global economy, leading to theintroduction of new technologies substituting the industrial era for an information era.

It is generally noted that the Fordist regime of accumulation, which held sway from1945 until the mid 1970s, has become unsustainable and that, hesitatingly and with

considerable disruption, it is now giving way to a post-Fordist regime. Thus, in the mid-1970s, when recession, unemployment, bankruptcies, and labour dislocation were rife, anew regime of accumulation, the post-Fordist, emerged.

As a historical process, capitalist economy and its rules can be identified by structures,principles and mechanisms that shape a mode of accumulation. In the case of Fordism(1945-1973)2 this can be perceived in the development of a leading technology basedon the assembly line. This is characterized by mass production (standardized products),with the work process broken up into simple tasks and, therefore, requiring unskilledindustrial labour.

A depiction of Henry Fords concept of standardization, which dates back to the

beginnings of the twentieth century, states that

Ford had recognized that, in the fabrication of complex productssuch as motor vehicles, the key to enhanced efficiency of productionlay in the method of coordinating discrete sub-production processes

2 Interval established by (Booth, D. 2004)


16/188

16

and in the manner in which the various sub-parts were assembledinto a whole vehicle. Ford Reckoned that instead of making the partsfirst and then fitting them together to make the whole, as in craftproduction, to make the parts fit prior to assembly would make hugesavings in the assembly stage. Thus he aimed for complete andconsistent interchangeability of parts, and for simplicity in attachingthem to each other. To achieve this, he insisted that. For example, thesame gauging system be used for every part throughout the entiremanufacturing process (Hoogvelt, A. 2001:95).

Mass production as a profitable undertaking consists in achieving economies of scale.Accordingly, the more that is produced, the more the unit cost of production comesdown, and consequently the cheaper the product becomes. For this to work, there needsto be a balance between mass production and mass consumption. This then determines acertain incapacity of the system, which can be specified within rigid principles ofaccumulation, and because of this there is a tendency for there to be recurrent crises.Ankie Hoogvelt portrays this well:

the success of the operation depends crucially on a continuous and

uninterrupted expansion of market demand for that same product.The mass-production system cannot cope flexibly with cyclicalrecessions, increased competition, or changing market tastes. Theresult is under-utilization of fixed capacity, and over production,resulting in lay-offs, losses, and ultimately closure (Hoogvelt, A.2001:44).

The response from capitalism must in consequence be to strive for a balance betweenmass production and mass consumption, searching for a stabilized relationship betweenthese. But how is this to be done? The regulation school explains the capitalistparadox of crisis and stability by drawing attention to the way in which the conditionsof stable economic growth in society depend on the coming together of a distinctive

regime of accumulation with a supportive mode of regulation. What exactly does thismean? First, it means that the regulation approach focuses on forces that will bringsystemic cohesion, and this is achieved by establishing a complex of cultural habits andnorms that will secure capitalist reproduction; in other words, in order to reproduce aparticular accumulation regime, there is a need to regulate, and this is attained bydeveloping a specific type of social arrangement that can be defined in contemporaryterms as that of the consumer society, with its correlate of the commodification ofculture.

As an example of establishing a new specific type of social arrangement, where newconsumer standards are imposed, is the case of the amazon.co.uk site in which, for theconvenience, the client herself can customise a wish list for future purchases that she

desires to buy, without the inconvenience of searching again for the item in question.Another example of a new social practice for a new style of living is the introduction ofdifferent shopping standards. Once again, an example can be drawn from the Amazonsite, where there is the possibility of pre-ordering a soon-to-be-launched product. The


17/188

17

pre-order sales ofHarry Potter and the order of the Phoenix ascended to 420,000 in theUK alone3.

The example above speaks though of a pattern adopted in a post-Fordist mode ofaccumulation and, as we shall see next, is predominantly defined by what is calledflexible accumulation. Flexible accumulation seeks to promote changes in marketdemand and market differentiation in consumer tastes in response to the break-up ofFordist modes of accumulation. That such shifts in patterns of accumulation are theresults of crises is explained well by Ankie Hoogvelt: The rigidities of the Fordistregime showed up with irrepressible frequency, culminating eventually in economicstagnation, contraction and continuing crisesDuring the crises a series of novel socialexperiments and technical innovations (particularly the introduction of informationdriven technologies) in the realms of industrial as well as in political and social life havebegun to take shape (2001:96(2001:96).

These observations help to give a more perspicuous view of the so-called transitionfrom Fordism to post-Fordism. Bob Jessop identifies a clearer distinction:

A minimum condition for referring to post-Fordism is to establish the

nature of continuity in discontinuity which justifies the claim that it is notjust a variant form of Fordism but does actually succeed Fordism. Withoutsignificant discontinuity, it would not bepost-Fordism; without significantcontinuity, it would not be post-Fordism. This double condition is satisfiedwhere: (a) post-Fordism has demonstrably emerged from tendenciesoriginating within Fordism but still marks a decisive break with it; or (b)the ensemble of old and new elements in post-Fordism demonstrablydisplaces or resolves basic contradictions and crises in Fordism (Jessop,B. 1995:257).

In what comes next I shall present a second pathway out of Fordism, one that emergesas alternative restructuring of capital, in the context of which Jessops account of post-

Fordism is helpful for understanding the nature of these transitions.

B) The Flexible Specialisation

Flexible Specialisation Theory, which is advanced by Michael Piore and Charles Sabel(1984), differs from the regulation school by avoiding placing an emphasis on generalstructural factors in economic and social life. They focus instead on the arena ofproduction by claiming that there have co-existed two opposites to industrial paradigms,that of mass production (product specific) and that of flexible specialisation (craftproduction), with one potentially limiting the other. Thus, Ash Amin stresses that theadoption and diffusion of a paradigm is claimed to be a matter of historical

circumstances and political choice rather than logical necessity (1995:14). Thereforepolicy decisions are a central factor.

From this perspective, according to some analysts (Hirst, P. and Zeitlin, J. 1991; Amin,A. 1995; Webster, F. 2002), it is acknowledged that the break of the Fordist mode of

3 (ESRC 2001)


18/188

18

accumulation has at least five related causes. 1) Productivity gains decreased, partlybecause of labour unrest during the 60s in the context of a Fordist organization ofwork, and this encouraged corporations to decentralise their activities. 2) Theexpansion of mass production led to the globalization of economic flows, which madeeconomic management more difficult. 3) There emerged small firms that were able toproduce competitively as a result of the accessibility to new technologies. 4) Socialexpenditure grew. And 5) there developed differentiation in patterns of consumptionand, therefore, changes in the market that were incompatible with mass productionmethods.

It is appropriate to turn now to an example of the implementation of flexible productionas a route out of Fordism, a route that emerges as early as the 1950s. This was the casewith the Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, which developed a new organization of theproduction process combining the benefits of mass production with those of craftproduction. At that time in Japan there was not mass domestic market, and so Toyotahad to make the most of market segmentation or fragmentation by offering multiplevariations on the same generic product.

Ankie Hoogvelt describes these flexible production processes of Toyota as volume-

through-variety, a mode of production that contrasts with Fordist volume-through-bulk:

Rather than, as Ford had done, using the same fixed capital investment formass production of the same standard commodity, Toyota achieved thisnot through making more of the same, but by making a whole variety of

products with the same general tool.

For example, in Fordist automobile plants dedicated machines were usedto produce each one of the 300 sheet steel parts that go into a motor car.Mass-producers used automated blanking presses, and stamping pressescontaining matched upper and lower dies. The same parts were stampedfor months or even years without changing dies. Toyota developed a

simple technique for changing dies quickly so that a variety of parts couldbe stamped with the same machine without any significant downtime.Moreover, the changing of dies could be done by the production workersthemselves. This is the essence of what some have called toyotism(Hoogvelt, A. 2001:98-99).

Furthermore, this production system is combined into a build-to-order-system thatconsists in practicing what is now called just-in-time (JIT). This led Toyota to stopbuilding cars in advance for unknown buyers, but rather to base its system on theprinciple of pre-selling cars. (This should remind us of the example of the Amazonsite).

Flexible accumulation stimulates differentiation. Thus, flexibility is not evident only inproduction; it can be found also in consumption. Consumerscreate particular lifestyles,,and thus there is a shift from a production to a consumption-oriented system. Thisbrings about a more individualist and consumption-centred person, in the context of theeveryday life.


19/188

19

From the early 1970s, market trends tend to constitute a problem for mass productionand an opportunity for flexible specialization. Therefore, a key concept in theunderstanding of these phenomena is the idea of flexibility. New information networksgenerate decentralized technologies of command and control, which at the same timeprovide cost-effective production such as just-in-time. Among other things it shouldbe noticed that such new technologies bring along new forms of organization (managerial trends) and new forms of geographical mobility. The implications of thiswill become more apparent in our later exposition of the work of Manuel Castells.

Post-Fordism, Globalisation and Network Oriented Technologies

As a result of the aforementioned crises, the Fordist regime gave way to a new regimeof accumulation, the post-Fordist. The globalization of the economy and therestructuring of the world-system hastened this new mode of accumulation.Globalization is not, however, a purely economic matter. As Webster comments, thereis a tendency to conceive of globalisation as primarily an economic affairbut it issimultaneously a social, cultural and political condition. Webster (2002:68) It must berealized, however, that globalisation could only happen because of the introduction of

newnetwork-oriented information and communication technologies. These lead to themuch needed development of an information infrastructure, conducive to networkedglobal/informational capitalism.

A basic challenge for the post-Fordist regime is the need to orchestrate an agile andglobalized expansion of production and marketing strategies, in which the developmentof a digital infrastructure, or what has been called the information superhighway4,hastens the flow of capital. This requires:

expansion of ICT as cost effective technologies for the growth of informationalflows and financial traffic.

computer networks that are the requisite for the co-coordination of global

enterprises (financial trade), and the production of robust data bases.

But it also must be remembered that the re-programmability of technology is a decisivefeature of flexibility. This potential is related to the fact that in such programming thereis not one absolute path that must be followed in order to gain a desired goal. There aremany paths. This is the basic nature of the decentralised logic of networking.

What constitutes the fundamental element of this technology is its configuration in thecomputer program. The information input is what determines the degree of flexibility ofsuch technology. Thus, any specific function of a device is embedded in the computerchip.

An example of the flexibility of a device because of the character of the programmingdesign can clearly be seen today in digital wrist watches. When we acquire a simpleelectronic watch, we have to set the time and date - lets say London time, 5 May 1999 -

4 As Nick Dyer-Witheford (2000) remarks As many commentators have pointed out, the highwayimage- with its connotations of linear movement, physical transportation, and material solidityseemshopelessly inadequate to convey the multidirectional, telecommunicational, virtual interactions ofcyberspace. (33)


20/188

20

in the process programming the device. Later if we travel to a different city, lets sayBarcelona, then we will need to reset (reprogram the time piece). But if instead we havea more sophisticated digital watch, this would probably have a world time functionthat contains all the standard time zones of the world. This means it has a more complexprogram, in which once we configure the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) zone, theprogram does automatic mathematical adjustments for all the other different time zones(Madrid, Mexico, Buenos Aires, etc.). So if, as in the previous case, we travel fromLondon to Barcelona, we will not have to reprogram it, only to select a buttonindicating the desired city time zone. This watch is an example of higher flexibility.

Besides this technological dimension in the establishment of an informationalinfrastructure to enable the globalized economy, there is also a spread ofcommunicational networks in a more cultural direction that aid the construction of asymbolic environment 5 that reaches right around the globe and is organised, in verylarge part by media transnational corporations Webster (2002:72).

In Castells magnum opus, The Rise of the Network Society, there is an acknowledgmentthat in the 1990s the two models converged around a single organizational trajectory,that of the network enterprise. The key to this convergence is the fusion of

telecommunications with computerized information processing. In Castells words, thistakes the following form in respect of the informational economy:

Under different organizational arrangements, and through diversecultural expressions, the are all based on networks. Networks are thefundamental stuff of which new organizations are and will be made. Andthey are able to form and expand all over the main streets and backalleys of the global economy because of their reliance on the informationpower provided by the new technological paradigm (Castells, M.2000:180).

This option follows the third pathway out of Fordism, which can be defined as the

network enterprise. Before we come to an understanding of this perspective, I wouldlike to acknowledge some of the limitations of the previous two positions I havedescribed.

The Regulation School and Flexible Specialisation: Some Further Considerations

An analytical review of the two interpretations of the restructuring of capitalismdescribed above takes us to an easy acknowledgment of their emphasis made on the

eeccoonnoommiicc sspphheerree,, by privileging an interest on the theme of economic growth andtechnological innovation. A central question for these perspectives is, therefore, how

capitalism can survive, even though the capital relation itself inevitably producesantagonism, contradiction and crises.An initial criticism with regard to this is that it is aone-dimensionalperspective. It is a narrow view of the phenomenon toperceivesocialtransition or the restructuring of capitalism on a predominantly economic basis.

5 That give emergence to new cultural forms of the self or what also is called as a new rreeggiimmee ooffssiiggnniiffiiccaattiioonnin postmodern thought and, which we will see further on chapter III.


21/188

21

It is widely acknowledged that regulation school theory is based in critical presumptionsregarding capitalism. This is because the analyses derive from the tools and insights ofthe Marxist tradition. Prominent representatives of the Parisian Regulation School, suchas Michel Aglietta, Alain Lipietz, and R. Boyer, are considered to be neo-Marxist, but acloser look at their research agenda puts such assumptions into question. Frank Webster(2002:62) notes that to identify ways in which instabilities are managed and containedsuch that continuity can be achieved amidst change is not exactly a critical matter. Inconsequence, Webster concludes that the regulation school apparently a critical theoryof capitalism, which fits rather neatly into a conservative frame work (63).

In similar vein, Ankie Hoogvelt (2001:115) draws attention to the way that theseregulation theorists acknowledge their Marxist roots and claim that they are using suchanalytical tools appropriately. Hoogvelt replies: But in using the tools appropriatelythey abandon the historical project for which Marx designed the tools. There is noconception of social progress; no eschatological belief in the forward march of history;no political commitment to surrender the freedom of the intellect to a course that historyhas charted (idem, 115).

The point of entry of the restructuring perspectives we have reviewed is that of the

requirements of capitals successful organization of society, not the contestation of itsrule (Graham, J. 1991). This can lead not only to the predominant acceptance of thehegemony of the market but also to a one-dimensionality that assuredly establishes aneasy acceptance of the success of capitalist restructuring, a situation that thus implicitlymeans a return of the end of history as an ideology.

Under these circumstances there is a theoretical necessity to further explore historicaldevelopments. They must be enabled by the recognition that there are not only historicalcycles to the restructuring of capital but also historical cycles of struggle in which apostmodern historical context acquires a different configuration, beyond the reach ofanalyses of class struggle. Though in this historical context, struggle and contestation,as the dialectical dynamics of present times, are articulated within a complex

articulation of agency and technology, this is a question that is conceptually limited bythe horizons of the traditions so far reviewed.

Considering the above we can add that question of the nature of the postindustrialtechnological restructuring of capital should not be seen only as an economic question,one of accumulation, but also as a motif, as a weapon against social dissent. This helpsus to understand the crisis of capital not as a mere problem of capitalist accumulationbut rather as a result of the effects of anti-capitalist struggle 6, a struggle that contestscapitalist discipline and control.

The regulation school and flexible perspective understand the origins of the crises as amere economic question. They do not consider the problem of capital relation,which is

apolitical dimension. This ignores the issues of political conflict between capital andlabour, over discipline, domination, subjugation, and the division of profits (classstruggle). In relation to this Nick Dyer-Witheford writes: Dismantling the Fordist

6 Or what is called the circuit of capital which is defined by such moments ofproduction, reproduction oflabour power and circulation, which at the same time is a circuit of accumulation and resistance.Technology therefore appears not just as instruments for the circulation of commodities, butsimultaneously as channels for circulation of struggles.


22/188

22

organization of the social factory, capital launches into its post-Fordist phase a projectthat, however, must be understood as a technological and political offensive aimed atdecomposing social insubordination (2002:76). In consequence we can introduce newproblems that relate to the dynamics of capitalist high technology restructuring and theidea of social struggle, a thematic that I will further approach in chapter three.

The economic thesis is also noticeable for the way that it perceives the role of ICTs. Ittends to address the problem in a technologically deterministic way, since technology isassumed to have a vital role in economic growth. From our perspective, this revealsonce again the need to question technology from a wider philosophical perspective. Thiscan take our inquiry into a more cultural dimension in which the emphasis can be placedon class struggle or on the ppaarrttiicciippaattiivvee ddiimmeennssiioonn ooffhhuummaann aaggeennccyy. In another chapterwe shall follow a more theoretical line of argument concerning the question oftechnology.

These are indicators that current transformations are not a mereeconomical/technological matter but that there is a sphere in which capital seeks toinfluence not ideas or profits, but the very rhythms, patterns, pace, texture, anddisciplines of every day life (Robins, K. and Webster, F. 1988). A number of

limitations concerning viewpoints of technology emerge. In sociological reasoning,there is the expression of a technological determinist approach. This is determined bythe intention of monitoring the social adjustments required by technological progress,and the economic rationale of more for less (Williams, R. and Edge, D. 1996). Hence,one of the basic problems with approaches in the dominant discourses of informationsociety that are based on technology is that their assessment of information andinformation technology is done in non-social terms, since technology is perceivedlinearly as a simple tool for innovation and productivity. This is a key limitation ofstandard accounts of ICT and social change in which the artefacts are conceptualized asthe products of engineering and as one hundred percent separable from socialrelationships Kling (2000:220). This is why there are predominant discussions aboutICT that focus on the technological artefact, which has been treated as if it can be

divorced from its social and cultural context, as if it is a clever machine of which we ineducation can make use. Technology, we would argue, is much more than that.(Mackay, H., Young, M. and Beynon, J. 1991:3). My main contention is that these newmaterial processes configure new subjectivity structures, engendering a new socialsubject, the postmodern subject.

With the above issues in mind, it is the cultural dimension that must be furtherconsidered. One way to do this is by emphasizing a nexus related to the establishmentof cultural development (regulated or not) of the symbolic environment, throughsymbolic dimensions of consumption that permit the emergence of new cultural formsof the self. This is a new regime of significationfrom apostmodern point of view, asituation that I shall further elaborate.

A group of intellectuals within the British Journal Marxism Today has introduced theconcept of New Times in order to mark the switch from standardized massconsumption to flexible specialization and to register the advent of intensified attentionto advertising, design, fashion, media, and market information. This generates apostmodern ambience of sliding signifiers, simulacra and spectacle, a culture whose


23/188

23

volatility and recombinancy both reflect and contribute to the fluidity of post-Fordistproduction (Hall, S. and Martin, J. 1989).

Related to this is Frank Websters comment that

Some commentators insist that this results in the ffrraaggmmeennttaattiioonn ooffppeeoopplleess iiddeennttiittiieess, in a lloossss ooff ssttaabbiilliittyy and satisfactions, while toothers it is a democratising force which opens up new experiences andopportunities, stimulates the ddeecceennttrreedd sseellffand generates excitement(Webster, F. 2002:81)7.

Another important argument relating theflexibility of capital accumulation to questionsof subjectivity constitution and educational processes is that offered by David Harvey:

the crisis of Fordism was in large part a crisis of temporal and spatial form,then we should pay rather more attention to these dimensions of theproblem than is customary in either radical or conventional modes ofanalysis [meaning with this that] the changing experience of time and spaceunderlies, at least in part, the impulsive turn to postmodernist cultural

practices and philosophical discourses8 (1990:196-197).

Along with this more cultural approach to the restructuring of society, it is important torelate it to the communication revolutions of broadcasting. Mass media and the socialinterplay in new media, such as new social relations in cyberspace, are central toManuel Castells work, and this is invaluable.

C) The Network Enterprise as Another Pathway out of Fordism

The idea of technological revolution and the concept of new information technologieshave become almost a clich. Yet they are central to understanding the nature ofinformation society and its emergence. A common mainstream perspective of the

significance of the information revolution tends to centre predominantly in a technicalview. But beyond such technical considerations, a structural view enables to see widerimplications in changes in the modes of production, consumption, and ways of life. Myintention in relation to this is to present further issues in respect of the nature of the network society and related ideas that shall draw from Manuel Castells.

I have previously shown two ways out of Fordism, the regulation school theory andflexible specialisation. These are divergent theoretical perspectives that emerged in the1980s and that focus their analyses on capitalist restructuring and its consequences fornew social structures. A third way out of Fordism is that of Castells, in his work fromthe mid-1990s. This concerns what he calls the global rearrangement of a new capitalisttechno-economic system, characterised by a new mode of development defined as

informationalism

9

and understood specifically as the network enterprise.

7 Emphasis mine.8 Emphasis is mine.9 There are different denominations expressed in a dichotomist forms about historical economicaltransitions among them are industrial vs. post-industrial (Jessop, B. 1995), Fordist vs. post-Fordist(Freeman, C. 1988) and Manuel Castells (2000) distinction in industrial vs. informational, although theyare referring to a same historical transitional phenomena, they construct differently their conceptual


24/188

24

Castells adopts the notion of the information technological paradigm1100 to expresscurrent technological transformations. According to Castells such technological impacthas accelerated the pace and reshaped the material basis of society - or, to put this morein his terms, has given way to the material foundations of the network societycharacterized by greater flexibility.. In this respect one of his claims is that societycannot be understood without its technological tools (Castells, M. 2000:5), although hemakes not concession to technological determinism. In this respect he writes:

Indeed, the ability or inability of societies to master technology, andparticularly technologies that are strategically decisive in eachhistorical period, largely shapes their destiny, to the point where wecould say that while technology per se does not determine historicalevolution and social change, technology (or the lack of it) embodiesthe capacity of societies to transform themselves, as well as the uses towhich societies, always in a conflictive process, decide to put theirtechnological potential (Castells, M. 2000:7).

In Castells deliberations the information technological paradigm is central, and this

helps define the nature of the NNeettwwoorrkk SSoocciieettyy,, which is characterized by constantchange and organizational fluidity. It must be clear that for Castells there is aninterrelationship of two distinct processes, one is the capitalist restructuring of the 80sand the other is the emergence of informationalism. These factors must be understoodas a result of the information technology revolution, which, interestingly enough, hesays, was itself shaped, in its development and manifestations, by the logic and interestof advanced capitalism, without being reducible to the expression of such interest(Ibid:13).

Castells delineation of the emergence of a new social structure as a result of thetechnological revolution sees it as a process that is capitalist and informational, and thatcorresponds historically to a period, towards the end of the twentieth century, of global

restructuring of capitalism. He emphasises that what underlies his judgement is the viewthat societies are organized around human processes structured by historicallydetermined relationships ofproduction, experience andpower (Ibid:14).

By emphasising the relationship of three spheres (production, experience and power),Castells accounts are more socially complex renditions of recent historicaltransformations. This is not only because he articulates in his analyses questions ofeconomics related to the production process, but because he focuses on the action ofhuman subjects themselves; experience is sees as a result of the interaction between

framework, so in consequence also are their dichotomist conceptualizations; considering this I would notconsider these terms to be synonymous rigidly speaking, since they are referred to specific systems of

interpretations of different author proposed perspectives.10 Castells resorts to Christopher Freeman definition: A techno-economic paradigm a cluster ofinterrelated technical, organizational, and managerial innovations whose advantages are to be found notonly in a new range of products and systems, but most of all in the dynamics of the relative cost structureof all possible inputs to production. The contemporary change of paradigm may be seen as a shift from atechnology based primarily on cheap inputs of energy to one predominantly based on cheap inputs ofinformation derived from advances in micro electronic and telecommunications technology. Freeman, C.(1988). Preface to part II. Technical Change and Economic Theory. G. Dosi, C. Freeman, et.al.(Armstrong, L. 2002) Quoted by Castells (2000).


25/188

25

their biological and cultural identities, and in relationship to their social and naturalenvironment (Ibid:15). This makes possible discussions about culture, symboliccommunication and identity issues. And last but not least, it enables him to addressmatters relating the power, which, being embodied in institutions and organizations,diffuses throughout the entire society(Ibid). This facilitates other things thediscussion of issues such as the nature of new social movements that are fragmented,localistic, and single issue oriented.

Castells interpretation implies a thematic development that includes issues ofcontinuity within change in relation to portraying the more recent socialtransformations. When pondering the emergence of a new informational mode ofdevelopment, he talks implicitly about continuity within change: what prevails is acapitalist mode of production where the separation between producers and their meansof production, the commodification of labour, and the private ownership of means ofproduction on the basis of the control of capital (commodified surplus), determined thebasic principle of appropriation and distribution of surplus by capitalist (Ibid:16) Andfurther, he conclusively affirms that while the informational, global economy is distinctfrom the industrial economy, it does not oppose its logic. It subsumes it throughtechnological deepening (Ibid:100).

Changes are at the level of the mode of development, which consists in technologicalarrangements through which labour works on matter to generate the product, ultimatelydetermining the level and quality of surplus (Ibid:16). It is this that distinguishes itfrom agrarian, industrial and the prevailing informational mode. This last is orientedtowards technological development and organizational change, and it prioritisesflexibility and adaptability for the pursuit of knowledge and information directedtowards the maximising of profit. Thus then there is continuity in what he definesinformational capitalism.

Within this framework, Castells aptly summarises these changes in the following terms:

A series of reforms, both at the level of institutions and in themanagement of firms, aimed at four main goals: deepening thecapitalist logic of profit-seeking in capital-labour relationships,enhancing the productivity of labour and capital, globalizingproduction, circulation, and markets, seizing the opportunity of themost advantageous conditions for profit-making everywhere; andmarshalling the states support for productivity gains andcompetitiveness of national economies, often to the detriment of socialprotection and public interest regulations (Castells, M. 2000:19).

Castells analytical remarks take capitalist restructuring and the diffusion ofinformationalism to be processes occurring on a global scale: societies did act/react

differently to such processes, according to the specificity of their history, culture, andinstitutions (Ibid:20). Thus this new techno-economic system, which does not havehomogeneity as a historical social form, should not be spoken of in general terms as theinformation society. Instead in Castells reasoning - since one of the key features ofthis society is based on a network logic, he adopts the concept of the network society,making it clear, however, that that concept does not exhaust the wider meaning ofinformation society.


26/188

26

At a later point Castells gives accounts of how the information technological paradigmcomes about in relation to the information technology revolution. It is relevant here tomention a discrepancy in previously observed points of view (post-Fordist and flexiblespecialisation) of how or why this happens. For Castells, the emergence of thistechnological revolution, which brings out the formation of a new socio-technicalparadigm - that of informationalism - is not exactly a result of crisis and capitalistrestructuring.

Castells questioning regarding this is important because it establishes his particularthesis respecting this phenomenon and delineates two relatively autonomous trends:

Why were discoveries in new information technologies clustered in the1970s and mostly in the United States? And what are the consequencesof such timed/placed clustering for their future development and fortheir interaction with societies? It would be tempting to relate directlythe formation of this technological paradigm to the characteristics ofits social context, particularly if we remember that in the mid 1970sthe United States and the capitalist world were shaken by a major

economic crisis, epitomized (but not caused) by the oil shock of 1973-4: a crisis that prompted the dramatic restructuring of the capitalistsystem on a global scale, actually inducing a new model ofaccumulation in historical discontinuity with post-Second World Warcapitalism. Was the new technological paradigm a response bycapitalist system to overcome its internal contradictions? Or,alternatively, was it a way to ensure military superiority over theSoviet foe, responding to its technological challenge in the space raceand nuclear weaponry? Neither explanation seems to be convincing.While there is a historical coincidence between the clustering of newtechnologies and the economic crisis of the 1970s, their timing was toclose, the technological fix would have been to quick , and too

mechanical, when we know from the lessons of the industrialrevolution and other historical processes of technological change thateconomic, industrial and technological paths , while related, are slowmoving and imperfectly fitting in their interactionIn fact, it seemsthat the emergence of a new technological system in the 1970s mustbe traced to the autonomous dynamics of technological discovery anddiffusion, including synergistic effects between various technologiesthe first technological revolution clustered in America, and to some

extent in California, in the 1970sdid not come out of any pre-

established necessity: it was technologically induced, rather than

socially determined.11 (Castells, M. 2000:59-60).

In order further to specify some distinguishing elements of such a paradigm I shallpresent some of his remarks concerning the more recent technological revolution thattook place around the 1970s in California, USA. By doing this we shall at the same timebe able to reveal his conceptualization of technology as a system that was fundamentalfor the process of socio-economic restructuring that began in the 1980s.

11 Emphasis mine.


27/188

27

We must start to make a brief review of what Castells understands as technology and ofhow he perceives the phenomenon of technological revolution - matters that areintimately linked. From a more general point of view his concept of technology is takenfrom Daniel Bell, who defines it simply as the use of scientific knowledge to specifyways of doing things in a reproducible manner (Ibid:28-29) and who specifically refersto information technology as a converging set of technologies in micro-electronics,computing, telecommunications/broadcasting and opto-electronics (Ibid:29). Hisunderstanding of information is defined in the following manner:

However, what is specific to the informational mode of development isthe action of knowledge upon knowledge itself as the main source ofproductivity. Information processing is focused on improving thetechnology of information processing as a source of productivity, in avirtuous circle of interaction between the knowledge sources oftechnology and the application of technology to improve knowledgegeneration and information processinginformationalism is orientedtowards technological development, that is toward the accumulation ofknowledge and towards higher levels of complexity in information

processing (Castells, M. 2000:17).

To explain his sense of what revolutionary change means in the sphere of technologyand its impact on society, he describes history as a series of stable states, punctuated atrare intervals by major events that occur with great rapidity and help to establish thenext stable era; it is characterized by transformation of our material culture by theworks of a new technological paradigm organized by information technologies(Ibid:28). Thus, revolution can be understood as a sudden, unexpected surge oftechnological applications transformed the processes of production and distribution(Ibid:34).

He refers to this technological information revolution as a historical event at least as

important the 18th

century industrial revolution: it induces a pattern of discontinuity inthe material basis of economy, society and culture (29). But in contrast there is in hisanalysis an acknowledgement of specific changes here that differ from any othertechnological transformation. These arise as a result of the fact that these newtechnologies share a common digital language, a language that makes possibleexponential growth, penetrating all domains of human activity.

A further distinguishing feature of the development of information technology is itsdynamics. Constant technological innovationmean, according to Castells, that it is notan isolated instance. Computer-based information systems can be run as ddiissttrriibbuutteeddnneettwwoorrkkss rather than through centralized data processing facilities. In consequence thisdynamics can be defined as non-linear and in this sense it can be affirmed that

information technology does not evolve toward its closure as a system, but toward itsopenness as a multi-edged network. (Ibid:75-76) For example, from the beginning ofthe 1980s it was clear that micro-computers could not be seen as isolated since theyperformed in networks and with increasing mobility because of their portability. Later,in the 1990s, they turned from centralized data storage and processing to networked,interactive computer power, in consequence changing social and organizational


28/188

28

interactions as well. This lead to the creation of the Internet and the development ofmore network technologies, such as internet browsers, search engines, and the like.

Regarding these changes to the network, Castells writes:

It reflects a given state of knowledge , a particular institutional andindustrial environment, a certain availability of skills to define atechnical problem and to solve it, an economic mentality to make suchapplication cost-efficient, and a network of producers and users whocan communicate their experiences cumulatively, learning by usingand by doing; elites learn by doing, thereby modifying the applicationsof technology, while most people learn by using, thus remaining withinthe constraints of the packaging of technology (Ibid:35-36)

In his examination of technology there is the basic recognition that technicalrelationships of production originate in the dominant spheres of society - the economic,for example, the production process, and the military-industrial complex. But hestresses that these are not the only realms where they have repercussions; they are alsoembedded in the cultural domain, since they spread throughout the whole set of social

relationships and social structures, so penetrating and modifying power and experience.Thus, modes of development shape the entire realm of social behaviour, of courseincluding symbolic communication. Because informationalism is based on thetechnology of knowledge and information, there is an especially close linkage betweenculture and productive forces, between spirit and matter (Ibid:17-18).

Therefore,

Technocultural Change, Education and New Configurations of Subjectivity. Mario Hernández Chirino

Documents