The cyberspace myth and political communication, within the limits of netocracy
Technological augmentation in the field of communication is a new way of controlling and manipulating the interface between current political communications and information. This is because, within the new paradigms of power, political communication is under the influence of netocracy, a new and myt...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
CEEOL
[2017]
|
| Dans: |
Journal for the study of religions and ideologies
Année: 2017, Volume: 16, Numéro: 48, Pages: 65-78 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Cyberespace
/ Communication
/ Mondialisation
/ Contrôle
/ Politique
|
| RelBib Classification: | AA Sciences des religions AD Sociologie des religions ZC Politique en général |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Myth
B netocracy B Rhizome B political actors B Cyberespace B superpanopticism B Political Communication B netocrats |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | Technological augmentation in the field of communication is a new way of controlling and manipulating the interface between current political communications and information. This is because, within the new paradigms of power, political communication is under the influence of netocracy, a new and mythical form of cybertechnological superpanopticism. The general objective of this paper is to analyze the phenomenon of cybertechnological globalization where, according to Alexander Bard and Jan Söderqvist, this new form of political and communicative superpanopticism is the result of netocracy. This is related not just to the undermining of capitalism, but also to the myth of internet transparency as the site for communicational freedom. In theoretical terms, this paper seeks to deconstruct this hypothesis based on Slavoj iek's position on netocracy. He claims this phenomenon is little more than a new and perverse form of capitalism which engages new methods of manipulating political communication. The methodology used in this paper draws on Bard and Söderqvist's arguments, iek's critique and Gilles Deleuze's deconstruction. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1583-0039 |
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of religions and ideologies
|