The duality of the internet as a control/deviation tool: Critical theory and the Parenthetical Man on the information age

disclaimer: I wrote this seven years ago for a seminar in sociology during my Ph.D. It was something that bothered me back then and bothers me even more right now. It is a really rough draft from someone that is not an expert in the field of sociology, far from it. I want to start a discussion, and invite people to join. Hopefully, someone somewhere will read this. If you do, get in touch and lets figure this out together. Maybe I'll write again about this seeing how tech and society changed (or not) in the last few years. Enjoy the reading...

On their paper, Lianos and Douglas (2000) ask who are the deviants today? They are not the moral incorrigibles of the past and they are known to be disadvantaged. They are not to be morally condemned but they are to be contained. They are simply ‘dangerous’, ‘suspicious’, ‘aggressive’, ‘threatening’, and ‘dodgy’. While I agree with them in some points, I don’t believe (I can’t believe) that deviance is dead, I just think it changed… (I think the argument can be made of different types of deviation. Specifically, I am talking about social and political oriented deviation)

?

I. Concept: I don’t intend to repeat the analysis of Adorno made in the first paper. Yes, Adorno’s critique on culture is directly related to capitalism and the fact that it restricts the counter possibilities in art and culture. By using Critical Theory and the Models of Man and Administrative Theory the critique is directed especially towards Organizational Theory and Economics Theories that assume the rational man/woman and the rational organization as self-maximizing selfish individuals. Guerreiro Ramos draws upon Adorno’s critical theory, perhaps with a more optimistic approach. As mentioned in Models of Man (1972), Guerreiro Ramos cites James Carroll as both seeing an “increase in awareness” which is “spilling over and inundating… existing social systems”. While both of them make strong critique about organizations and in case of Adorno also to production of arts and the making of culture. Both argue strongly for a critical approach towards the sciences, in which “man” should take critical and active stance towards improving society. As Guerreiro Ramos argues, “Today, however, an administrative theory unconscious of its psychological implications can hardly be satisfactory. The parenthetical “man”* cannot avoid being a participant of the organization. However, in striving to be autonomous, he cannot be explained by the psychology of conformity, as can those individuals who behave according to the operational and reactive models. He possesses a highly developed critical consciousness of the hidden value premises of everyday life (Guerreiro Ramos 1972). Returning to Adorno and making a bridge into current times, it is important to point out the fact that the social domination and pessimism over the possibility of human emancipation and freedom was rooted in the historical circumstances of the time, such as National Socialism, state capitalism and especially mass culture. Seventy years later and new and improved tools for this domination (and the existence of the same tools such as Television and Radio), but mostly with the advent of internet, more than ever tools for domination and manipulation are available for capitalist and corporative interest. Yet, the free-flow of ideas and information in the internet age has made possible for another chance for the rise of critical thinking and the parenthetical “man”.

II. Illustration: There are several examples of situations in which these theories can be applied. Most interestingly for me is to understand this unbalanced duality of the internet (and you can include social media) in which such as Facebook and Twitter are still open-traded companies that act as corporations, and have power to manipulate their users to buy products from companies that advertise on their websites, or to direct intention of vote towards politics that they want in power. On the opposite side, the internet is completely open for all kinds of sharing, and has been proven to be a tool for creation of knowledge, sharing of critical thinking, and dissemination of information without previous control or manipulation. Most interestingly, during all history of mankind access to information was considered to be the reason for people to be manipulated or obey. Access to information seems not to be a problem anymore, and yet the Parenthetical “Man” has yet to be realized in most societies. As for data, the internet makes quantification a possibility, so it could be fairly easy to measure political interest in Facebook and compare in countries or between years, or to see how many times Critical Thinking sites or videos on YouTube were shared or liked. This data could be studied in longitudinal sense, and can be correlated with indicators of inequality, unionizing of workers or corruption (the case currently happening in Brazil and the internet traction on it seem to inform us of a milestone). ?

III. Analysis: In his book The Shallows, Nicholas Carr (2010) makes the argument that the internet is limiting our memory and our attention span, meaning that people are getting harder to focus (like studies that show that people do not see videos online that are longer than 5 minutes) and as discussed before, if before access of information could be a possible reason for people not to fight the capitalist oppression, now it could be argued that they are just more interested in using the internet for media and entertainment. The possible findings of this research are in the sense of discussion if the information age has brought a renewed interest in critical thinking and if the digital society is finally capable of giving birth to the Parenthetical Man. It is important to realize that possible findings should try and address critical theory contextualized within this new paradigm of social relations in a digital world.

The findings of this research may give insight into possibilities of action and solidarity in a global context, as organizations such as Anonymus, WikiLeaks, Change.org and so many others that deviate from the norms or not actually try to have a critical stance against current. It might be too much of a goal to imagine building theory that can explain this phenomena, let alone propose a course of action that can improve the dissemination of critical thinking and political action of the masses. However, bringing this sociological discussion deeper into the Information Systems field might help open some doors of questioning in the field, as Management scholars have been doing for some time now (with modest results, to be honest). I do hope to find data to corroborate the idea that even if the situation is dire and there is corporate and political power to fight, that the distance between our current society and one a truly democratic and educated one is being shortened with the technological tools that makes possible for the dissemination of knowledge, art, self-expression, and most of all sociological critique. I hope that answering these questions I can disagree with Adorno’s pessimism that there is no more critical conscience of the masses, and that his Critical Theory and Guerreiro Ramos’s intention for a new science of organizations is actually more than just a theory.

*I would like to reinforce the need for it to be a parenthetical woman also.