Cyberspatial Transformations of Society: Applying Durkheimian and Weberian Perspectives to the Internet

7/29/2019 Cyberspatial Transformations of Society: Applying Durkheimian and Weberian Perspectives to the Internet.

1/19

The International Journal of

Technology, Knowledge,

and Society

TECHANDSOC.COM

!"#$%&'(''')**$&'+

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

,-./01234536'703819:0;345:81':9'*:


2/19

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND SOCIETY

http://techandsoc.com/

First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USAby Common Ground PublishingUniversity of Illinois Research Park2001 South First St, Suite 202Champaign, IL 61820 USA

www.CommonGroundPublishing.com

ISSN: 1832-3669

2013 (individual papers), the author(s) 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted underthe applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without writtenpermission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact.

is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

Typeset in CGScholar.http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/


3/19

Cyberspatial Transformations of Society:Applying Durkheimian and Weberian

Perspectives to the InternetDavid Drissel, Iowa Central Community College, IA, USA

Abstract: In the years since the life and times of Emile Durkheim (18581917) and Max Weber(18641920), the worlds economic systems and related social structures have undergone pro-found transformations. Probably more than any other single invention or technological innov-ation in recent decades, the Internet has transformed societies profoundly, propelling the In-formation Revolution to unprecedented heights. This paper examines the major sociologicaltheories of Durkheim and Weber, assessing their relevancy and applicability to contemporarysocial structures that have been dramatically transformed by the ongoing Information Revolu-tion. How would Durkheim and Weber react to the ubiquitous presence of the Internet, e-mail,social networking websites, smart cell phones, and other information technologies in todaysworld? Using the theories of Durkheim and Weber as a guide, this paper will evaluate the soci-etal implications of information technologies in general and the Internet in particular, focusingon changing structures of authority, social solidarity, interpersonal relations, and the economy.Durkheimian and Weberian perspectives will be applied to several of the most perplexingquestions facing the increasingly digitized world of the 21st century.

Keywords: Internet, Cyberspace, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Social Networks, InformationRevolution, Industrial Revolution

INTRODUCTION

In the years since the life and times of the noted sociologists, Emile Durkheim (18581917)and Max Weber (18641920), various social structures and related economic systemsaround the world have undergone profound transformations. Writing in the late 19th andearly 20th centuries, Durkheim and Weber were responding to widespread socioeconomicchanges (e.g., industrialization, urbanization, capitalization, bureaucratization), which

were occurring in Western Europe and North America. But soon after the Industrial Revolutionreached its apogee by the mid-20th century, many corresponding social structures and productionmethods started to become obsolete. This was due in large measure to the ascendancy of theInformation Revolution, which has its origins in the mid-1940s with the invention of the firstelectronic computer. This latest revolution in technology reached its apparent zenith in the

1990s and early 2000s with the mass proliferation of personal computers, word processingsoftware, the Internet, e-mail, and related information technologies.

Just as the Industrial Revolution resulted in the systemic transition of agricultural and guild-based production modes to mostly factory-based manufacturing, the Information Revolutionhas sparked commensurate national/global changes in economic systems and social structures.As a result of this new revolution, a dramatic shift of national and global economic resourceshas occurred, transforming much of the world from labor-intensive to knowledge-intensiveproduction. The declining size of the blue-collar workforce in North America and Western

The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and SocietyVolume 8, Issue 3, 2013, http://techandsoc.com/, ISSN 1832-3669 Common Ground, David Drissel, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:

[email protected]


4/19

Europe, coupled with a corresponding increase in the number of white-collar and serviceworkers, is one of the most visible manifestations of this ongoing technological transition.Many manufacturing jobs have been rendered redundant or irrelevant as a result; while newprofessions, vocations, and occupational specializations tied to the digital sector have emerged

in their stead. In effect, much of the developed world has undergone an informative-drivenchangeover from an industrial to a postindustrial economy that is based primarily on human,commercial, and financial services. As an apparent consequence of such technological and so-cioeconomic changes, social values are also undergoing a dramatic metamorphosis. Indeed, theInternet and other tools of postindustrialization are having a socially liberalizing effect onhuman attitudes and behavior, thereby facilitating the emancipation of people from bureau-cratic hierarchies and related authoritarian strictures (Inglehart and Welzel 2005:29).

Originally designed by civilian scientists and engineers working for the Pentagon in the 1960s,the Internet was envisioned to be a computer-mediated communication system that would beeffectively invulnerable, even to a nuclear attack. The United States Department of Defense(DOD) became involved in the project soon after a groundbreaking Rand Corporation paper(Packet Switching Networks for Secure Voice) was published in 1964. The papers premise

of a computer network of nodes equal in status and lacking any identifiable central authoritywas particularly attractive to Cold War-era military planners. Concerned about the survivabilityof command and control systems during wartime, the DOD quickly embraced the concept (Bell2001:12). With the DOD underwriting the project through the Advanced Research ProjectsAgency (ARPA), research was conducted jointly at Rand, the Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, UCLA, and the British National Physical Laboratory; eventually leading to the firstsuccessful test of the system in 1969 (Kizza 1998).

The subsequent development of hypertext markup language (HTML) in the late 1980s greatlyenhanced Internet accessibility for personal and non-technical uses. Tim Bernes-Lee, a Britishresearcher working at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN)1 in Switzerland, hadproposed a point and click system for browsing online documents. This proposal evolved

into HTML, which enabled users to jump automatically from one Internet site to another.By linking sites to others through HTML, a dispersed yet interconnected web-like infrastructurewas created (Marsden 2000:4). Christened the World Wide Web (WWW) in 1989, this newsystem was designed to facilitate the diffusion of global information through a system of hyper-links, universal resource locators (URLs), and web servers (Bell 2001). As a relatively efficientand user-friendly system, the WWW quickly opened the door to widespread electronic commerce.

More than any other invention or technological innovation in recent decades, the Internethas transformed societies profoundly, propelling the Information Revolution to unprecedentedheights. Simply put, the Internet and related computer-mediated communication systems allowfor information to be both collected and disseminated faster and more cheaply than ever before(Metzel 1997:711). Countless documents, files, databases, contacts, products, and services areonly a mouse click away, as interconnected electronic threads link potential consumers with

direct distributors and suppliers instantaneously. With approximately two billion people wiredworldwide, businesses and consumers increasingly conduct their transactions online. The Internethas almost completely blurred the distinction between the producers and consumers of techno-logy, contributing directly to heightened levels of technological diffusion, organizational innov-ation, and international competition. Consumers frequently adapt and expand upon newtechnologies and related organizational strategies, with such innovations quickly adopted byfirms, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Fueling globalizationwith its ubiquitous network-based transnational operating system, the Internet has penetrated

1 CERN was funded by an intergovernmental consortium and was primarily concerned with particle acceleration ex-

periments (Marsden 2000:4)

82



5/19

virtually every major economic sector and industry on the planet, thereby enabling all sortsof businesses to become borderless (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2000:36).

This paper examines the major sociological theories of Durkheim and Weber, assessing theirrelevancy and applicability to contemporary social structures that have been radically trans-

formed by the ongoing Information Revolution. Research questions include the following: Howwould Durkheim and Weber react to the Internet, e-mail, social networking websites, smartcell phones, and other information technologies that have emerged in recent decades? How hasthe Internet transformed social relationships and social stratification systems in societies aroundthe world, given the ubiquitous presence of cyberspatial applications in everyday life? Usingthe theories of Durkheim and Weber as a guide, this paper will evaluate the societal implicationsof information technologies in general and the Internet in particular, focusing on changingstructures of power and authority, social solidarity, interpersonal relations, and the economy.Durkheimian and Weberian perspectives will be applied to several of the most perplexingquestions facing the increasingly digitized world of the 21st century.

The Transitional Era of Durkheim and Weber

The theories of Emile Durkheim and Max Weber have several important similarities but evenmore significant differences, as would be expected given their unique life experiences. The socialenvironment that existed in France during the last few decades of the 19th century largely shapedDurkheims view of the world. Capitalism had become firmly entrenched in French society bythe time of Durkheim, with rugged individualism and a highly competitive work ethic percolatingthroughout the nation. Such individualism, which Durkheim viewed as an ideological byproductof the French Revolution and similar anti-feudal transformations of the early 19th century, hadbegun to erode the nations collectivist ethos by the later part of the century. Durkheim foundhimself in a country that was suffering from a growing identity crisis, as the national socialfabric seemingly was unraveling before his eyes. Compounding this troublesome social milieuwas the emergence of the Dreyfus Affair of 1894, which threatened to divide the country even

further (Morrison 2006:148149).Though Weber lived in approximately the same time period as Durkheim, he was the product

of a very different social and political environment, that of the newly reunified, politically as-cendant, German empire. Under the authoritarian rule of a conservative military-monarchicalgoverning elite, Germany underwent rapid modernization during Webers lifetime. Being raisedin a middle class household, Weber witnessed the decline of village life and the growth of cities,along with a dramatic expansion of factory-based production and the related military-industrialcomplex. The German national ethos, which had been fragmented in the countrys political-religious spheres for centuries, crystallized in the mid-to-late 19 th century under the iron handof Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Waging a kulturkampf(literally, culture struggle) againstthe hegemonic power of the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, Bismarck had largely suc-ceeded in secularizing the country. Growing up in this historic epoch, Weber came to view re-ligion, politics, and the law as key overlapping spheres directly impacting the socioeconomictransformation of Germany and other countries (Morrison 2006:7).

Both Durkheim and Weber were clearly dissatisfied with the largely philosophical and/orpurely economic approaches that had been offered by other social theorists in the study ofindustrial societies. Along these lines, they both viewed utopian socialist, scientific socialist,communist, Social Darwinist, and social psychological theories as insufficient for describingmodern urban life. Instead, they proposed structural-functional approaches for investigatingmacro-socioeconomic institutions that transcended or went beyond social class interests andindividual merit and concerns. Notably, both theorists emphasized social cosmologies basedon grand unifying concepts and multiple interrelated social factors that deemphasized social

83

DRISSEL: CYBERSPATIAL TRANSFORMATIONS OF SOCIETY


6/19

class antagonisms and other sources of purely economic conflict highlighted by theorists suchas Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

Durkheim focused his research on society as a holistic entitywhich emerged as central tohis theoretical paradigm because no individual is sufficient unto himself. As Durkheim ob-

served, It is from society that he (man) receives all that is needful, just as it is for society thathe labors (Durkheim 1984:173). In this regard, members of society are linked together invarious ways that often (though not always) transcend or supersede social class distinctions.Weber similarly emphasized the existence of numerous overlapping spheres in the political,legal, economic, and religious realms that collectively impact societal development, while oftentranscending social class and status groupings. As he noted in Economy and Society (1914),The interpretive understanding of human social action is paramount in the study of society(quoted in Morris 2006:348).

Durkheimian Perspectives of Society

First and foremost, Durkheim was a social realist (or rationalist) that emphasized the ob-

jective existence of scientifically verifiable social realties, not dependent upon individual actionsor perceptions (Morrison 2006:152; Lukes in Durkheim 1982:3). Every society is filled withvarious social facts and other collective elements that exist as real things and are externalto the individual (Durkheim 1982:51). Such social facts consist of various types of acting,thinking, and feeling that reflect societys coercive power over individuals in constrainingtheir personal behavior (Durkheim 1982:52). In this respect, society is the result of social factstaking precedence over individual idiosyncrasies or other internal psychological facts. Whilesome social facts are material (e.g., society, religion, government), others are nonmaterial (e.g.,morality, collective conscience, social currents) (Ritzer 2000:7577; Lukes in Durkheim 1982:7).

One example of an important social fact emphasized by Durkheim is social solidarity, whichrefers to societys overall unity and common consciousness. Various social bonds link individuals

together in a given society, but are affected by changes in the mode of production. Durkheimcontended that modifications in the social division of labor occur as societies progress fromartisanal to industrial modes of production (Coser in Durkheim 1984). As occupational dutiesbecome more specialized and detailed in the modern production process, social solidarity isimpacted. The diminishing role of religion and related moral codes further transform socialsolidarity. Along these lines, Durkheim described societies as evolving from a state in whichsocial solidarity is mechanical (i.e., based on common sources of identity and a shared valuesystem existing in rural/village-based feudal settings) to one that is organic (i.e., based ondifferentiated sources of identity and specialized but interdependent roles found in urban/factory-based capitalist settings) (Morrison 2006:160161; Hawkins 1994:464).

According to Durkheim, primitive rural societies with mechanical solidarity are more ho-mogeneous, conformist, and tend to be banded together in segmented consanguineous clans

and castes. In such an environment, cooperative and non-specialized forms of labor are thenorm. Religious rites and other practices shared by the entire community greatly enhancemechanical solidarity. But as labor tasks become more complex and fragmented in modernfactory settings, many of the old mechanical ties atrophy and dissipate (Durkheim1984:127129). Durkheim argued that labor thus becomes disassociated from families andfriends; instead focusing on specialized job tasks and related occupational functions. Neworganic forms of reciprocal dependency normally emerge as a result; with social links beingestablished primarily out of economic necessity rather than family/tribal ties (Durkheim1984:160). These links are not simply ephemeral economic exchanges between financial actors,but instead are indicative of interdependent functions that bind individuals to each other andto society as a whole (Morrison 2006:160).

84



7/19

However, such an organic form of social cohesion is the ideal, but not always the reality inmodern societies. Durkheim emphasized that there are many potential social pathologies thatarise as an unintended consequence of the social division of labor. More specifically, he conten-ded that the demise of communal social bonds and tribal linkages associated with mechanical

(pre-capitalist) forms of solidarity, together with economic crises in capitalist societies; sometimesresult in new abnormal societal maladies. Such problems include social disorganization, socialinequality, and anomie (or normlessness), leading to the forced division of labor. Durkheimcontended that the forced division of labor is inherently exploitative and can lead to downwardmobility for those at the lower end of the social hierarchy. Under such aberrational socialconditions, particular interest groups or social classes attempt to use their position for personaladvancement or enrichment by dominating other groups in society. Workers in the lower classes,under such a scenario, may be compelled to work in jobs for which they are not suited, largelyout of economic necessity. Or in a related vein, such workers may be excluded from particularprofessions by anachronistic biases or preferences that have nothing to do with ones actualtalents and skills.

Castes and classes, in this regard, can become constraining in a negative sense when more

powerful groups compel such a division of labor without any moral foundation; i.e., disreg-arding the natural abilities of the workers and denying them the opportunity to achieve a pos-ition that is commensurate to their abilities (Durkheim 1984:312313). Durkheim depictedthese problems as arising or becoming more acute during periods of serious economic downturnsor relatively rapid systemic transitions. Such crises can result in the erosion of social solidarity,leading various interest groups to compete against each other, further disrupting the socialfabric of society (Durkheim 1984:311).

Weberian Perspectives of Society

Like Durkheim, Weber sought to apply many scientific concepts to the study of society, as he

looked for distinct patterns of behavior within particular civilizations. His emphasis on ration-alization and rationality, for instance, highlighted the significance that he attached to ra-tional means-end calculations undertaken by actors in largely capitalist industrial societies. Inthis regard, activities and beliefs found in various spheres (including religion, politics, and thelaw) are directly correlated with pragmatic and egoistic interests in the economy (Ritzer andGoodman 1997:220). This emphasis on rational behavior is found extensively in Webers best-known tome, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905), in which he argued thatthe Calvinist doctrine of predestination (i.e., otherworldly salvation or damnation being preor-dained for all persons) has facilitated the development of a distinctly rational capitalist ethosand organization of business in the West (Weber 2003:2122).

In contrast to Durkheim, Weber rejected the idea that the methodology of the natural sciencesshould be applied en masse to the social sciences. He characterized such an empirical approach

as overly constraining and excessively scientific. Devising an eclectic middle-ground betweencompeting German schools of positivism and subjectivism, Weber sought to fuse scientific ob-servation with a sociological understanding (verstehen) of human behavior and social life.Though his concept ofverstehen was certainly subjective to some extent, it was not based simplyon feelings or intuition but rather on intense and rigorous research. Correspondingly,Weber emphasized the importance of causality; i.e., the existence of observable connectionsand effects resulting from socio-historical phenomena (Ritzer and Goodman 2004:198202).Weber argued, for instance, that there was a direct causal link between the development ofmodern capitalism and the rational ethics of an ascetic Calvinist work ethic. As he noted,the influence of certain religious ideas have played a direct role in the development of aneconomic spirit, or the ethos of an economic system (Weber 2003:27).

85



8/19

Just as Durkheim sought to create and utilize conceptual tools (e.g., social facts) for investig-ating society, Weber also sought to devise theoretical concepts that would facilitate an under-standing of societal phenomena. Webers most significant conceptual tool in this regard wasthe ideal type, which was intended to reflect the elemental and basic qualities of particular

social institutions. Such a fundamental typology of constructs was designed to encapsulate theessential features of what is being studied in its pure form, rather than reflecting what may ac-tually be observed in the field. Such ideal types serve as measuring rods for analyzing whatactually exists in reality. From a sociological standpoint, the differences between ideal typesand real cases are compared, with the goal of determining the cause of any deviations betweenthe two. As Weber explained, An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of oneor more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or lesspresent and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena. These viewpoints are unifiedinto a conceptually pure mental construct that cannot be found empirically anywhere inreality (Weber quoted in Ritzer and Goodman 2004:204).

As an example of such pure ideal types, Weber outlined three major forms of authoritythat can legitimize power domination in a given society: traditional, charismatic, and legal-ra-

tional. Somewhat similar to Durkheims concept of mechanical solidarity, Weber contendedthat primitive societies are distinguished by ritualistic observances of the eternal yesterday;i.e., of the mores sanctified through the unimaginably ancient recognition and habitual orient-ation to conform. He explained that such traditional authority is administered by a patriarchthat embodies tradition and for this reason commands personal loyalty from his subjects (Weberin Curtis 1981:427). Weber maintained that in many societies charismatic authority eventuallyemerges, which is based not on tradition but rather on the distinct personality of the ruler. Sucha ruler has an extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma) that inspires absolutepersonal devotion in his followers. Under such conditions, the religious prophet or politicaldemagogue assumes absolute power on the strength of his own personal charismatic appeal(Weber in Curtis 1981:427).

Ultimately, the more advanced rational societies legitimize authority and domination byvirtue of the belief in the validity of legal statute and functional competence based on rationallycreated rules. Within such an ideal bureaucratic environment, obedience to authority is astatutory obligation (i.e., based on rational laws) rather than simply a reflection of conformisttraditions or cults of personality. The bureaucrat, in this regard, is responsible for particularoccupational tasks and becomes a servant of the state rather than a servant of a patriarchor demagogue (Weber in Curtis 1981:427). Bureaucracy, in this ideal sense, is organized hier-archically with specific levels of authority, written rules, sanctions, and functions assigned toeach office. For this reason, Weber contended that bureaucratic organizations are capable ofattaining the highest degree of efficiency, and is in this sense formally the most rational knownmeans of exercising authority over human beings (Weber quoted in Ritzer and Goodman2004:214).

Just as Durkheim contended that organic solidarity is not always fully achieved in industrialsocieties, Weber noted that legal-rational authority is not always the predominant or exclusiveform of authority existing in the modern era. In the real world, he observed, there is often acombination of all three forms of authority (Weber in Curtis 1981:428). As an ideal type, Weberdepicted bureaucracy as having certain advantages over previous administrative systems. Atthe same time, he recognized that bureaucratization is often problematic and counterproductiveto individual liberty when actually implemented. Ironically, Weber viewed capitalism as thebest antidote to over-bureaucratization, which might otherwise lead to the dissipation of per-sonal freedom (Ritzer and Goodman 2004:214216).

86



9/19

Durkheimian Perspectives Applied to the Internet

From a Durkheimian perspective, the Internet is a social fact that has transformed society innumerous ways, from the workplace to the home. As a social fact, cyberspace is not dependent

in its existence upon any particular individual actions, psychological perceptions, or idiosyn-crasies. Though liberating in many respects, the Internet also has exhibited a coercive powerover society by constraining personal behavior and mandating new ways of acting, thinkingand feeling (Durkheim 1982:51), particularly at the workplace. The use of e-mail, for instance,has become compulsory for countless millions of employees; thus profoundly modifying inter-personal relations among and between workers. Indeed, new mandatory workplace functionsand labor specializations have emerged as a result of the Information Revolution. In Durkheimsview, society is akin to a biological organism, with solidarity in general being dependentupon the functional activity of its specialized parts (Durkheim 1984:324). Like a biologicalorganism, the Internet has become intertwined throughout and within the various structuresand functions of society, thus compelling individuals to adjust and adapt accordingly. In thisregard, the Internet is akin to a rhizome; i.e., a subterranean stem lacking a definite beginning

or end that continues to grow in all directions, constantly building new connections while oldones die (Froehling 1997:293).

Many of the Internets rules of conduct (e.g., technical protocols and online norms andetiquette) were devised in online consensus-building discussions among the original digerati(e.g., scientists and academicians who created the Internet and adapted it from its originalmilitary incarnation to the civilian sector). Such rules, though mostly voluntary in an absolutesense, are in Durkheims words clearly withdrawn from individual discretion (quoted inMorrison 2006:189). Indeed, the creation and early development of the Internet represented atruly significant occurrence of collective effervescence, a term that Durkheim used to describesuch historic moments. In this regard, new social facts came together and congealed after thedigeratioperating with similar mindsets and residing within an interconnected scientific-culturalmilieuhad reached important decisions through electronic consensus. As Durkheim has con-

tended: Just as opposing states of consciousness are mutually enfeebling to one another,identical states of consciousness, intermingling with one another, strengthen one another(1984:55).

The Internet has demonstrated the potential to generate new forms of social solidarity thateffectively accentuate and/or synthesize many mechanical and organic social bonds. As contem-porary theorists have noted, interpersonal attachments have been created or strengthened bycomputer-mediated forms of communication, though disparities in online accessibility (i.e.,the digital divide) certainly have diminished such trends in many impoverished global envir-onments.2 In effect, the Internet has anointed a new technocratic oligarchy while marginalizingthe masses of humanity that lack affordable Internet access. Nonetheless, an increasingly largenumber of persons living in technology-poor regions of the world are unable to use the tech-

nology to disseminate what they believe are accurate and sensitive representations of themselvesand their cultures (Lengel and Murphy 2001:194195).In effect, the Internet has given rise to virtual communities, which are the social aggrega-

tions that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions longenough, with sufficient feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace (HowardRheingold, quoted in Foster 1997:24). According to Durkheim, communities by definition in-volve strong voluntary bonds and reciprocal social relations. Thus, for virtual communities tobe genuine, members must have an identifiable sense of togetherness and a distinctive we-feeling. Online contact alone is not sufficient for solidarity to occur, though the Internet andother interactive technologies may facilitate the creation of virtual communities and social

2 For example, Bhalla (1996) argues that the so-called technology revolution is more myth than reality for many

developing nations.

87



10/19

bonds if other factors (e.g., shared social norms) are present. Along these lines, Foster (1997)claims that the Internet possesses the dialectical capacity to synthesize the public self (Ge-meinschaft) with the private self (Gesellschaft). Cyberspace magnifies this ability simultan-eously to express the self and the other, the individual and the community, he contends (27).

Durkheim indicated that there is a significant danger of industrial societies falling prey toanomie and other maladies that adversely affect social norms and weaken social bonds betweenindividuals and the community, particularly when undergoing relatively rapid systemic trans-itions. In particular, Durkheim contended that the forced division of labor could lead todownward mobility for those at the lower end of the social hierarchy (Durkheim 1984:312313).In the case of the Information Revolution, tech-savvy elites often use their knowledge-basedpositions for personal advancement or enrichment by exploiting or excluding the digital have-nots and other technologically deficient groups in society. It is therefore imperative, Durkheimnotes, that society has the capability for constructing a general consensus to avoid or minimizesuch dysfunctions (Durkheim 1984:316).

To some extent, Durkheim seemed to blame urbanization for such problems in his day,noting that personal bonds become rare and weak as population density increases in cites.

He observed that social ties undergo a shift from communities of necessity in rural settingsto elective affinities in urban environs (Inglehart and Welzel 2005:29). As a result, individualsmore easily lose sight of one another, with various social problems emerging as a result(Durkheim quoted in Morrison 2006:167). Durkheims prescription for such difficulties wasto reform the social system through the strengthening of interdependent organic corporationsbased on occupation. By corporation, he meant, all those working in the same industry, as-sembled together and organized in a single body (Durkheim in Grusky 2001:178).

In the contemporary postindustrial era, the Internet and other forms of computer-mediatedcommunication have generated the capability to facilitate the creation of various new organicbonds, albeit in a mostly virtual environment. Indeed, many new networks of professional/oc-cupational cohort groups, as well as various subcultures and social movements, have crystallized

and flourished in cyberspace. Individuals and groups are able to form cybernetworks voluntarilyfor the purpose of exchanges, including resource transactions and relations reinforcements(Lin 2001:212). Such cybernetworks effectively provide social capital in the sense that thatthey carry resources that go beyond mere information purposes (215). From the earliest daysof the civilian/academic Internet, collaborative voluntary organizations such as the InternetSociety (ISOC) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) rendered decisions regardingcyberspace management and engineering protocols by achieving a rough consensus (Gould2000). More recently, American political blog sites such as The Daily Kos and The HuffingtonPosthave generated unofficial political platforms through electronic consensus, which formedin opposition to the conservative status quo of the Bush years. In turn, conservative social mediasites have flourished in opposition to the reputedly liberal policies of the Obama Administration,including websites such as Newsmax and The Drudge Report.

Significantly, various online social networking sites (SNSs) have enabled like-minded membersto connect one-on-one, thereby forging expansive networks based on friendly consensusbuilding. Within the past decade, social networking services such as Facebook, MySpace, andTwitter, have risen to the digital forefront through the use of highly novel, user-driven, profilingsystems. In spite of their underlying technological complexity, SNSs have a simple missionnet-work through existing and compound relations (i.e., friends of friends) (Murthy 2008:844).In this regard, online network members can easily search for current or prospective friends.Such browsing is largely automated and based on relevant demographic factors such as loc-ation, school affiliation, age, ethnicity, gender, religion, political ideology, income, and sexualorientation. Social networking services have enabled like-minded members to connect one-on-one, thereby forging expansive networks based on friendly consensus building. The relativelyhigh levels of immediacy, intimacy, and communal interactivity found on social networking

88



11/19

sites tend to enhance interpersonal performances and impression management. Members ofsuch sites effectively contextualize their online personas by uploading photographs to theirprofile page, selecting popular songs and video clips to be featured for public perusal, listingtheir interests and activities, and leaving public comments on other friends pages that may in-

clude selected images, videos, or web links (Tufekci 2008).It is important to note that becoming someones Facebook friend or Twitter follower

does not necessarily result in any meaningful communication. Indeed, social media participantsoften seek to collect as many friends or followers as possible; thus friendship on socialnetworking sites can be completely superficial in some instances. Nonetheless, millions of peopleworldwide are reconnecting online with lost friends and acquaintances that they knew inthe offline world years ago, thereby expanding their social networks exponentially. The devel-opment of such virtual networks, which often are more expansive than offline networks, couldbe characterized as the next big step in the evolutionary development of social solidarity. AsDurkheim noted, social bonds ideally are reconfigured as societies evolve from simple to morecomplex states (1984:310311).

In theory, the Internet could strengthen mechanical social bonds existing in developing soci-

eties, thereby reinvigorating indigenous tribal cultures whose very survival has been threatenedby the encroaching forces of globalization. In point of fact, various indigenous rights movementsin developing countries such as Mexico, China, Guatemala, Myanmar, Brazil, India, and Ecuadorhave utilized the Internet in recent years to disseminate information about their respective cul-tures and concerns. Many such movements (e.g., Zapatistas/Mayans in Mexico, Tibetan freedomactivists in China) have established meaningful connections with diasporic cohorts and supportersin non-governmental organizations via cyberspace. Notably, MySpace users often join groupsites, and Facebook members frequently affiliate with causes, devoted to various socialmovements, including those on behalf of indigenous rights. On such sites, members who aresituated in a variety of geographic locales express their common concerns and post commentsin a highly interactive format, with discussion and debate often ensuing.

As Durkheim has noted, communities situated in preindustrial milieus tend to band togetherin interconnected segmented clans (Durkheim 1984:127129). Over the centuries, suchmultiple clan connections have become what Durkheim termed polysegmentals (Morrison2006:198). As an inherently polycentric and interdependent communication medium, the Internetis in many respects similar to the tribal structures described by Durkheim. Notably, Rheingold(2002) has described the newest wave of 21st century cybernetic human interaction as e-tribal-ism, with members of various thumb tribes essentially linked together through networkedhandheld computers and smart cell phones, often aware of each others precise physicallocation through texting and geographic positioning systems (GPS). In effect, SNSs and othercomputer-mediated applications potentially can strengthen both the more intimate bondingties found within a localized community, and the relatively looser bridging ties that areprevalent within a more borderless association of like-minded peers. Thus, a single thumb-tribe

could consist of family members, close friendsboth old and new, acquaintances, and individualswho have established reciprocal relationships in cyberspace but have never met in person. Asa consequence of SNSs and other information technologies, both social bonding and socialbridging are no longer limited by time and space. Accordingly, it is no wonder that manyyoung people in particular use SNSs principally to maintain contact with their peers and tobecome acquainted with new people (Brandtzaeg et al. 2010:1718).

Recent revolutionary events in the Middle East and North Africa have illustrated such e-tri-balism, which has facilitated the crystallization of diverse grassroots movements acting in op-position to traditional authoritarian elites. Dubbed the Arab Spring (or Arab Rebellion), thewave of revolutions that swept the old guard from power in Tunisia and Egypt were bothtransnational and transformational, involving a sustained campaign of relatively non-violenttactics such as strikes, demonstrations, sit-ins, marches, and rallies. From Arab Springs inception,

89



12/19

the mostly youthful participants made extensive use of social media including Twitter, Facebook,and YouTube. Viewed as emblematic of globalization, such online networks facilitated themobilization of social movement participants, and aided in the coordination of civil resistanceactivities.

The youthful protestors of Arab Spring were labeled a global generationrather than simplyMuslim youth or Arab nationalists. Indeed, Arab Spring participants reportedly shared afeeling a connectivity that includes but is not limited to social media and a striking sense ofglobal citizenship, itself a product of technological change and expanding networks of commu-nication (Coll 2011:1). One of the main strengths of social media and other informationtechnologies in sparking such political protest movements is that many different individualsand groups are easily able to propagate and propagandize for their cause outside the mediaand norms traditionally instituted by the pre-Internet society (Kahn and Kellner 2003:300).

Weberian Perspectives Applied to the Internet

Invoking a Weberian perspective, the origins and development of the Internet can be depicted

as the result of an ascendant and largely esoteric ideology that has become the contemporaryequivalent of the Protestant work ethic. Indeed, several contemporary theorists (e.g., Rheingold2002; Uimonen 2003) have dubbed this overarching cyberspace philosophy, the ethos of theInternet, which dates back to a highly idealistic countercultural perspective embraced by manypioneers of digital technology in the 1960s and early seventies. Invoking an anti-authoritarianlibertarian ideal, the Internet ethos depicts cyberspace as a unique electronic frontier, one thatsteadfastly resists any and all attempts at governmental control or state-imposed regulationand economic monopolization. As an ideal type, the Internet facilitates the transmission of in-formational and technical resources to entrepreneurs and other go-getters, due in large measureto its decentralized character.

However, this new ethos also has a metaphysical communal side; with the Internet being

described as a diffuseparallel universe that effectively links individuals who hold similar interestsand concerns, regardless of their national origin or locale. Based on such cosmopolitan logic,entering cyberspace essentially transforms national citizens into global netizens, imbued withunique characteristics and prerogatives unrestrained by physical space or time. From aWeberian vantage point, the rigorous workload of the digerati who established much of theoriginal Internet infrastructure and related dot.com industries reflects a tireless asceticism thatenvisions both monetary reward on earth and otherworldly acclaim in cyberspace. A kindof causal relationship exists between communal recognition in the ethereal world of the inform-ation society on the one hand, and individual financial gain in the capitalist system on theother, which serves as definitive proof of such cyberspace acclaim.

In this regard, cyberspaces cosmopolitanism is a quasi-religious form of predestination thatis semi-messianic in character. This new postmodern ethic has encouraged the development of

an individualistic-libertarian spirit that encourages short-term sacrifice in the form of an incred-ibly heavy workload, combined with occupational piety. The fact that American scientistsprimarily invented the Internet and an Englishman created the World Wide Web (while inSwitzerland) would only seem to reinforce Webers thesis that there is something uniquely ex-ceptional about the Western-Protestant mindset and its cultural tableau. Notably, unemploymentand poverty in todays world are often linked to technological illiteracy and the correspondingdigital divide, thereby reinforcing the importance of a new ethos of technological predestin-ation; i.e., either salvation or damnation.

In Weberian terms, cyberspace is a highly rational ideal type, with individuals and firmsemploying precise means-end calculations in their web-based marketing and promotionalstrategies. With many-to-many media outlets via the web, business and commerce promo-tionsas in spam, pop-ups, etc.-have become ubiquitous. The Internet has dramatically increased

90



13/19

the level and scope of economic competition amongst firms, due in part to the plethora of onlinedistributors and elimination of many middlemen through direct online transactions. Profilesof consumers by businesses are now the norm, with bits of information compiled surreptitiouslyfrom online corporate surveillance. Thus, the libertarian ideal of an electronic frontier appears

to be at risk. Recent years have witnessed the gradual bureaucratization of cyberspace as aresult, with voluntary rules and protocols gradually being replaced by national and transnationalregulatory regimes.

The charismatic authority of highly successful and seemingly messianic dot.com pioneerssuch as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Dell remains signi-ficant, but appears to be in decline when viewed from the total realm of the information society.Certainly, such men are often depicted as exemplary larger-than-life figures or technologicalprophets that inspire personal devotion in their followers. As Weber contended, traditionalreligious values have an enduring influence (Inglehart and Welzel 2005:21), even after beingreframed within the context of otherwise rational societies and social structures. The transferenceof value-laden characteristics such as messianism, asceticism, hard work, and enlightenmentfrom traditional Calvinism to a new breed of techno-prophets and their followers is noteworthy.

Postman (1993) has observed that the postindustrial deification of technology has generateda new kind of social order (technopoly) that is devoid of traditional checks and balances inthe political realm. Barber (1996) echoes this concern, noting that the reputedly neutral toolof technology has become an instrument of oppression and disenfranchisement. He warns ofprivacy rights eroding further as a result of public and private sector electronic surveillance.Rather than heralding a new era of unrestricted media expression, Barber argues that the In-formation Age has witnessed an unprecedented corporate takeover of most media and enter-tainment outlets, including the gateways and tollbooths of the information superhighway(273).

However, rational-legal authority increasingly has intruded into what was once the pristine,untamed wilderness of the electronic frontier, given the relatively recent reality of the Net be-

coming a worldwide phenomenon. Probably the best example of a powerful, rational-legalregulatory body in this regard is the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN), responsible for managing the Nets global domain name system (DNS) and mediatingdomain-name disputes between firms. Ostensibly nongovernmental, though licensed directlyby the U.S. Department of Commerce, ICANN is often accused of favoring American corporateand political interests over West European and especially Third World concerns. Most signific-antly, the root zone file-a master list of all registered numbered sites on the Internet ProtocolSystem (IPS)-is managed by ICANN but ultimately controlled by the U.S. government.

Many contemporary theorists postulate that a borderless Internet necessitates a more directsystem of regulatory action by intergovernmental bodies.3 Milton Mueller (2010),4 for instance,has been very critical of ICANN and the U.S. hegemonic self-regulating system, arguing infavor of a more multilateral and internationalized arrangement. Though some regulation of

cyberspace is undoubtedly needed and necessary, Weber recognized that bureaucratization isoften counterproductive to individual freedom. Certainly, Weber would seek to achieve somesort of a regulatory balance in this regard, so as to preserve cyberspaces entrepreneurial spiritwhile at the same time insuring the maintenance of a relatively open-access system. Given thesystemic transition from an industrial to postindustrial society, structural changes in the gov-ernance of the Internet are likely necessary from a Weberian vantage point. As Inglehart andWelzel (2005) have observed, Industrialization gives rise to one major process of culturalchange: bringing bureaucratization and secularization. The rise of postindustrial society leadsto a second major process of cultural change: instead of rationalization, centralization, and

3 See Feld (2003) and Samuelson (2000).4

Also see Drissel (2006).

91



14/19

bureaucratization, the new trend is toward increasing emphasis on individual autonomy andself-expression values (25).

In his writings, Weber focused a great deal on social status; i.e., the prestige or honor attachedto ones position in society; noting that societies are often organized in terms of social status

hierarchies. In this respect, social stratification in a given society is partly the result of variationsand disparities in status-based prestige; which is primarily based on perceptions of lifestyle-based proclivities and related conspicuous consumption patterns or lack thereof. As Webertheorized, status situation refers to every typical component of the life of men that is de-termined by a specific positive or negative, social estimation of honor (quoted in Ritzer andGoodman 1997:212).

From this vantage point, social networking services such as Facebook and MySpace are verystatus-driven, often creating new social hierarchies and reinforcing existing forms of offlinesocial stratification based on lifestyle. By creating personal profile pages via such sites, usersessentially type oneself into being (Sundn, 2003:3), thus visibly staging ones own self-presentation and constructing status-based public identities in a highly interactive online envir-onment. Indeed, what makes SNSs distinctive and transformative is not that they allow indi-

viduals to meet strangers, but rather that they enable users to articulate and make visible theirsocial networks (Boyd and Elisson 2007). Members of social networking sites often strive toimpress or influence others in some capacity, particularly among their current or prospectivegroup of computer-mediated friends. Many types of presumably non-financial, online per-formances accord hierarchical-based status or notoriety, including adding or accepting someoneas a friend, visibly displaying the number of friends on a given profile page (with largenumbers of friends accruing greater status), and revealing in ranked order ones topfriendswhich are accorded relatively higher status than other friends on a given profile page.

In addition, the typical online social network member frequently and instantaneously dissem-inates various status updates and bulletins to all of their networked friends, thereby enablingdiscursive performances to be witnessed by large numbers of people in cyberspace. Status updates

on Facebook in particular are intended to generate acclaim from like-minded peers, with theelectronic option of hitting a like button conferring greater or lesser prestige on a given friend.Bulletins, web links, and videos are often forwarded from multiple parties in an extended net-work (i.e., friends of friends), thus potentially generating status-based acclaim beyond the ori-ginal friend-based network. However, the senders of such messages tend to forward them fre-quently to like-minded peers, but are not particularly concerned about the reliability or accuracyof a given messages content. In fact, senders often exhibit reduced constraints about thetype of messages they send electronically, particularly in comparison to print and phone messages(Kibby 2005:771). From a Weberian vantage point, such behaviors are indicative of the struc-tural transformation that has occurred in modern (and postmodern) society, with values suchas individualism, status seeking, and risk-taking becoming more pronounced. Just as thesevalues initially fueled the development and expansion of capitalism (Weber 2003), they are

now facilitating the growth of online social networks and related electronic forms of commerce,political activism, and other pursuits.

Conclusion

Never before in the history of humanity has a communications medium evidenced such highlevels of interpersonal interactivity, informational storage and retrieval capacity, and transna-tional commercial and networking potential as the Internet. Based on electronic connectionsbetween countless millions of computers, servers, and local networks located around the globe,the Internet is linked by technical protocols that are both highly synchronized and decentralized.Cyberspace, that otherworldly sphere created by the Internet, exists in real time as millions ofindividuals are wired into its everyday material applications. The Internet has almost completely

92



15/19

blurred the distinction between the producers and consumers of technology, contributing directlyto heightened levels of technological diffusion, organizational innovation, and internationalcompetition. Consumers frequently adapt and expand upon new technologies and related or-ganizational strategies, with such innovations quickly adopted by many firms, government

agencies, and non-governmental organizations.As has been demonstrated in this paper, the structural-functional theories of Durkheim and

Weber have a great deal of relevancy and applicability to the Information Age, particularly re-garding the forging and strengthening of interpersonal connections linked to virtual settings.In the phraseology of Durkheim, the Internet is a social fact that has had a transformative impacton numerous social structures. Paraphrasing Weber, cyberspace is an ideal type, which has real-world applications in numerous situations. Indeed, the Net has revolutionized many disparatesocial structures, including the media, social networking, social movement activism, politicalcampaigning, stock market transactions, banking, commercial transportation, public education,academic research, courtship and dating, shopping, workplace interaction, recorded music,games and recreation, and travel and tourism.

Invoking Durkheims perspective, cyberspace is a public resource, a global commons in which

information and knowledge should be shared without rigid boundaries. In this regard, theDurkheimian approach tends to emphasize the cosmopolitan side of the Internet ethos, whichenvisions organic communal ties and social bonds forged in online settings. Over the years,countless millions of virtual communities have been established in cyberspace. Citizenshipin such communities tends to empower groups that would otherwise be more directly oppressedby hegemonic elites. However, the communal ideal of the Internet has been threatened by theplutocratic-corporatist project of the Global North, through the inherently selfish, monopolisticforces that have reputedly seized and hoarded the Nets technological infrastructure. Thus, thelabor market undergoes compulsory specialization, which can further erode social solidarity.Stressing sociopolitical and technical realities, the Durkheimian perspective envisions theglobal democratization of cyberspace.

In contrast, the Weberian model depicts the ethos of the Internet primarily as a modern-dayequivalent of the Protestant work ethic, which first crystallized and subsequently metastasizedin North America and Western Europe. In particular, occupations and companies that are de-pendent on instantaneous access to information and knowledge have developed new esotericnorms and values, based largely on an ideology that is both hyper-individualistic and ultra-competitive. From a Weberian viewpoint, the Internet is viewed as a collection of economicresources, easily accessed by those in the know. The decentralized-libertarian character of theNet facilitates the transmission of information and technical resources to entrepreneurs, system-atically bypassing anachronistic social structures. In many respects, this approach emphasizesrational economic integration and self-governance of the Internet (including limited-bureaucraciessuch as ICANN), to the exclusion of any kind of political/global amalgamation that might imposetop-down regulatory regimes.

In sum, Durkheim and Weber both experienced socioeconomic and technological transitionsin the Industrial Revolution that are indeed comparable to the contemporary postindustrialInformation Revolution. Consequently, the two men developed social theories that have survivedthe test of time. Both theorists stressed the importance of abandoning traditional ways of lifeand embracing social change resulting from industrialization and urbanization. If Durkheimand Weber were alive today, they would inevitably focus much of their study and theorizingon the transformative social impact of the Internet.

.

93



16/19

REFERENCES

Barber, Benjamin R. 1996. Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism are Reshapingthe World. New York: Ballantine Books.

Bell, D. 2001. An Introduction to Cybercultures. London and New York: Routledge Press).Bhalla, A.S. 1996. Facing the Technological Change. London: Macmillan.Boyd, Danah. 2007. Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics

in Teenage Social Life. In MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital LearningYouth,Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Boyd, Danah and Nichole B. Elisson. 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, andScholarship, The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 1.

Brandtzaeg, Petter Bae, Jan Heim, and Birgit Hertzberg Kaare. 2010. Bridging and Bondingin Social Network SitesInvestigating Family-Based Capital. International Journalof Web Based Communities 6(3):231235.

Coll, Steve. 2011. The Second Tunisian Revolution: A New Model of Change for a New

Generation. US/ME Policy Brief: Perspectives on the Arab Spring(July). Retrievedfrom http://www.usmep.us/usmep/wp-content/uploads/2011-18-USMEPolicy-Brief1.pdf

Curtis, Michael. 1981. The Great Political Theories Volume 2: From Burke, Rousseau andKant to Modern Times. New York: Avon Books.

Drissel, David. 2006. Internet Governance in a Multipolar World: Challenging AmericanHegemony, The Cambridge Review of International Affairs Volume 19, Number 1,pp. 105120.

Durkheim, Emile. 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociologyand its Method. New York: The Free Press.

Durkheim, Emile. 1984. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.Feld, H. 2003. Structured to Fail: ICANN and the Privatization Experiment, in Adam

Thierer and Clyde Wayne Crews, Jr. (eds.). Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance

and Jurisdiction (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute).Foster, Derek. 1997. Community and Identity in the Electronic Village, in David Porter (ed.)

Internet Culture. New York and London: Routledge.Froehling, Oliver. 1997. The Cyberspace War of Ink and Internet in Chiapas, Mexico.

The Geographical Review 87(2):29130.Gould, M. 2000. Locating Internet Governance: Lessons from the Standards Process, C.

Marsden (ed.), Regulating the Global Information Society. London and New York:Routledge Press: 193210.

Grusky, David. 2001. Social Stratification: Class, Race and Gender in Sociological Perspective.Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Hawkins, M. J. 1993. Durkheim on Organizational Corporations: An Exegesis and Interpret-

ation, Journal of the History of Ideas 3.Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy:The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kahn, Richard and Douglas Kellner. 2003. Internet Subcultures and Oppositional Politics.In David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl (eds.), The Post-Subcultures Reader Oxfordand New York: Berg.

Kibby, Marjorie D. 2005. E-mail Forwardables: Folklore in the Age of the Internet. NewMedia Society 6:770790.

Kizza, J. 1998. Civilizing the Internet: Global Concerns and Efforts Toward Regulation (Jeffer-son, North Carolina and London: McFarland).

94



17/19

Lengel, L. & Murphy, P. 2001. Cultural Identity and Cyberimperialism: Computer-mediatedExplorations of Ethnicity, Nation, and Citizenship, in B. Ebo (ed.), Cyberimperialism?Global Relations in the New Electronic Frontier. Westport, CT: Praeger: 187204.

Lin, Nan. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge and New

York: Cambridge University Press.Lukes, Steven. 1987. Marxism and Morality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Marsden, C. 2000. Introduction: Information and Communication Technologies, Globalisation

and Regulation, in Christopher T. Marsden (ed) Regulating the Global InformationSociety. London and New York: Routledge Press.

Metzl, J. 1997. Information Technology and Human Rights. Human Rights Quarterly 18.4836859.

Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge. 2000. A Future Perfect: The Challenge and HiddenPromise of Globalization. New York: Crown Publishers.

Morrison, Ken. 2006. Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. London:SAGE Publications.

Mueller, Milton L. 2010. Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Murthy, Dhiraj. 2008. Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologiesfor Social Research. Sociology 42:837855.

Postman, Neil. 2000. Technopoly: The Broken Defenses in Albert H. Teich (ed.), Technologyand the Future. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martins: 1325.

Rheingold, Howard. 2002. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution, Perseus: Cambridge MA.Ritzer, George. 2000. Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Ritzer, George and Douglas Goodman. 2004. Classical Sociological Theory. Boston: McGraw

Hill.Samuelson, P. 2000. Five Challenges for Regulating the Global Information Society, in

Christopher T. Marsden (ed) Regulating the Global Information Society (London and

New York: Routledge Press)Sundn, Jenny. 2003. Material Virtualities. New York: Peter Lang.Tufekci, Zeynep. 2008. Can You See me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online

Social Network Sites. Bulletin of Science Technology 28:2036.Uimonen, P. 2003. Networks of Global Interaction, Cambridge Review of International

Affairs, 16(2):273277.Weber, Max. 2003. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Mineola, NY: Dover

Publications.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Prof. David Drissel: David Drissel is a professor of social sciences at Iowa Central CommunityCollege in Fort Dodge, Iowa. His undergraduate work included a double major in politicalscience and sociology. His graduate studies focused on comparative politics, international rela-tions, social change and development, and social movements. Research interests includetransnational social movements and computer-mediated communication, nations/states under-going political/economic transition, youth subcultures and collective identities, the globalpolitics of Internet governance, juvenile delinquency and subterranean values, diasporic youthand social networking, and the role of interactive media and popular culture in mobilizing socialnetworks. Professor Drissel is a two-time Fulbright Scholar who has studied extensively inChina and the Czech/Slovak Republics, among many other countries. A frequent speaker andconference participant, he has had several papers published in various academic journals and

95



18/19

compilations. He is an alumnus of the Oxford (University) Roundtable in Great Britain, wherehe presented a paper on Internet governance, which was later published in the Cambridge Reviewof International Affairs.

96



19/19

The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge

and Societyexplores innovative theories and practices

relating technology to society. The journal is cross-

disciplinary in its scope, offering a meeting point for

technologists with a concern for the social and social

scientists with a concern for the technological. The

focus is primarily, but not exclusively, on information

and communications technologies.

Equally interested in the mechanics of social

technologies and the social impact of technologies,

the journal is guided by the ideals of an open society,

where technology is used to address human needs

and serve community interests. These concerns are

grounded in the values of creativity, innovation, access,

equity, and personal and community autonomy. In this

space, commercial and community interests at times

complement each other; at other times they appear

to be at odds. The journal examines the nature of new

technologies, their connection with communities, their

use as tools for learning, and their place in a knowledge

society.

The perspectives presented in the journal range from

big picture analyses which address global and universal

concerns, to detailed case studies which speak of

localized social applications of technology. The papers

traverse a broad terrain, sometimes technically and

other times socially oriented, sometimes theoretical

and other times practical in their perspective, and

sometimes reflecting dispassionate analysis whilst at

other times suggesting interested strategies for action.

The journal covers the fields of informatics, computer

science, history and philosophy of science, sociology

of knowledge, sociology of technology, education,

management and the humanities. Its contributors

include research students, technology developers and

trainers, and industry consultants.

The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge

and Societyis a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 1832-3669

Documents

Cyberspatial Transformations of Society: Applying Durkheimian and Weberian Perspectives to the Internet