Journal of Network Theory by Lukie

ISSN: 0000-0000 (PRINT)

Journal

2009

Network Theory

Volume 1 Issue 1

Special issue

MAPPING THE NETWORK SOCIETY

PUBLISHED BY VLIS PRESS (C)

Journal of Network Theory

Editor-in-chief

Drs. M.V.T. van den Boomen Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies M.V.T.vandenBoomen@uu.nl

Editorial assistent

V. Micu Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies V.Micu@students.uu.nl

Guest editors

V. Micu Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies V.Micu@students.uu.nl Mapping the Web 2.0 Metaphor: Exploring the Power of Metaphors in Mapping the Internet on a Conceptual and Theoretical Level Interview: MINDZ.com: Making an Enterprise 2.0 L. R. Stalenhoef Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies L.R.Stalenhoef@students.uu.nl Mapping a Community in the Blogosphere Book review: Mark Tremayne â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Blogging, Citizenship and the Future of Media I. Pouw Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies I.Pouw@students.uu.nl Mapping the Global Social Power Networks Book review: David Grewal - Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization S. C. Hansen Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies S.C.Hansen@students.uu.nl Mapping Quality: Grasping the Emergent World Wide Web Book review: Steven Johnson - Emergence

Design

Disclaimer Statements of fact and opinion in the articles in The Journal of Network Theory are those of the respective authors and contributors and not of TheComputer Journal or VLIS Press. Neither VLIS Press nor The Journal of Network Theory make any representation, express or implied, in respect of the accuracy of the material in this journal and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. Thereader should make his/her own evaluation as to the appropriateness or otherwise of any experimental technique described. ÂŠ All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission of the Publishers, or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the NL. The issue date is April 2009.

L.R. Stalenhoef Utrecht University Department of New Media Studies L.R.Stalenhoef@students.uu.nl Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Introduction: Mapping the Network Society Vlad Micu Utrecht University (3076229) Department of New Media Studies V.Micu@students.uu.nl

This issue’s theme ‘Mapping the Network

The sheer complexity of the World

Society’ deals with the difficulties in

Wide Web makes it not only hard to

producing maps of the Internet that rely on

perceive it as a whole, but also invites us to

conventional cartographic metaphors and

critically look upon the use of concepts and

the familiar ecological and economic

metaphors associated with it. We could

models. The papers in this journal will offer

wonder how much it actually means if it is

diverse insights and recommendations on

used in different contexts and for various

the alternative ways of understanding the

purposes.

scope and complexity of the Internet geography. In the ongoing endeavour to understand the Web’s topology, this issue’s theme is dedicated and building forth on Albert-László Barabási’s influential work on how scale-free networks can be quantified and described with the same type of mathematical laws.

This edition begins with an introduction to the importance of working and dealing with powerful metaphors in the field of network theory. Micu’s (2009) bibliographical research dives into the recent work done on comprehending and dealing with metaphors, specifically the recent Web 2.0 metaphor that has heralded

The conditions for network theory

a rise in the commercial use of online

and research have been in a constant state

services and applications on the Web, based

of change, as any attempt to map the

on new design patterns, business models

Internet appears to influence or change the

and software architecture. His work

way it is represented. It is therefore that the

presents several key precautions when

topics of this journal entail a range of

dealing with the power of metaphors, as it is

methodological tools to facilitate a better

important to emphasize the distinction

understanding of what is currently going on

between Web 2.0 as a metaphor and a

with the World Wide Web and the

collective term to sum up different socio-

associated field of research.

technical changes that are currently occurring on the World Wide Web. Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Stalenhoef’s piece explores the existence of

(2009) analyzes the concept of social global

the ‘blogosphere’, and how it is often

power networks and proposes that Social

perceived as a vital public sphere and is said

Network Analysis might be a useful tool

to be a collective of interconnected blogs in

when mapping these power structures

which virtual communities are formed by

within a global network. Offering a critical

means of linking back-and-forth. Her paper

view on the attempts done to map the

shows how the sheer complexity of the

Internet in various ways, Hansen discusses

blogosphere makes it not only hard to

how the sheer amount of content and

perceive the blogosphere as a community,

seemingly chaotic structure have revealed

but also invites us to critically look upon the

how challenging it is find suitable methods

overuse of the concept of community and

and theories for mapping the Internet. His

propose alternatives since revision of this

paper analyzes how they reveal that the

term seems necessary.

topology of the Internet (the rules of the

To elaborate on the ways in which certain new communication technologies

systems) is comprehendible, but has made thorough mapping almost impossible.

change the notion of global networks, Pouw

References Hansen, S. C. (2009) Mapping Quality: Grasping the Emergent World Wide Web. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 42 -51. Micu, V. (2009) Mapping the Web 2.0 Metaphor: Exploring the Power of Metaphors in Mapping the Internet on a Conceptual and Theoretical Level. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 5 – 16. Pouw, I. (2009) Mapping the Global Social Power Networks. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 32 – 41. Stalenhoef, L.R. (2009) Mapping a Community in the Blogosphere. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 17 – 31.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Mapping the Web 2.0 Metaphor: Exploring the Power of Metaphors in Mapping the Internet on a Conceptual and Theoretical Level Vlad Micu Utrecht University (3076229) Department of New Media Studies V.Micu@students.uu.nl

Abstract Web 2.0 is considered to herald “a fuller realization of the true potential of the web platform” and offered as a set of “design patterns and business models for the next generation of software”(O’Reilly, 2005). As other social scholars propose, it is important to emphasize the distinction between Web 2.0 as a metaphor and a collective term to sum up different socio-technical changes that are currently occurring on the World Wide Web. This paper explores the ways in which the metaphor of Web 2.0 has been created, how it has directed social scholars in their research on Web 2.0 and it has influenced our understanding of mapping the Internet on a conceptual and theoretical level. In order to come closer to an answer to the research question, a body of research done by social scholars will be reviewed on both the history of the Web 2.0 concept, the matter of convergence and the socio-technical change that has occurred since the introduction of the Web 2.0 metaphor.

Introduction

The term Web 2.0 has caught a lot of

love to hate or hate to love but either way,

attention ever since it was coined by Tim

you’ll know you’ll get folk’s attention by

O'Reilly and associates in 2004. A term “you

saying it” (Hinchcliffe, 2006). Created with the intention to sum up the transition of the

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

World Wide Web to a new phase of use and

Mapping the phenomenon of Web

service development. The term is

2.0 has been dispersed and fragmented all

considered to herald “a fuller realization of

along (Harrison and Barthes, 2009). A with

the true potential of the web platform” and

social scientists diving into the world of

offered as a set of “design patterns and

folksonomies, social networks, search

business models for the next generation of

engines and virtual communities under the

software”(O’Reilly, 2005). It was most

banner of Web 2.0 without granting critical

importantly presented as a normative and

attention the power of Web 2.0 as a

descriptive model for the creation of new

descriptive metaphor. It is that important

tools, products and ICT architectures

question that has not been asked often

(Berry, 2007).

enough:

Still, the public, media and

How does the Web 2.0 metaphor influence

academia struggled with the fact that Web

our understanding of mapping the Internet

2.0 is not so easily defined (O’Reilly 2006).

on a conceptual and theoretical level?

Considering that its ubiquitous nature is what makes it such a powerful term to view the future of the post-cyberspace world, should defining Web 2.0 ultimately be our goal? In their attempt to clarify what is exactly new about Web 2.0, Harrison & Barthel (2009) state that it is important to differentiate “between what is celebrated in the discourse of Web 2.0 and what is genuinely novel about this phenomenon” (2009:158). Just as other social scholars propose, it is important to emphasize the distinction between Web 2.0 as a metaphor

This paper explores how the metaphor of Web 2.0 has been created, how it has directed social scholars in their research on Web 2.0 and it has influenced our understanding of mapping the Internet on a conceptual and theoretical level. In order to come closer to an answer to the research question, I will review a body of research done by social scholars on both the history of the Web 2.0 concept, the matter of convergence and the socio-technical change that has occurred since the introduction of the Web 2.0 metaphor.

and a collective term to sum up different socio-technical changes that are currently

This paper will be building forth on

occurring on the World Wide Web. As

Thomas and Wyatt’s (1999/2004) research

Stalenhoef (2009) will show later in this

on the effects of metaphors on our

paper, meaning is imposed by academics as

understanding of the Internet. First, an

they start writing about it and problems

introduction will be given to their work and

arise when researchers define such research

then associate its value to the importance of

objects as the blogosphere or social

using it in our understanding of Web 2.0 as

networks. This brings us to the importance

a metaphor. Secondly, a collection of critical

of understanding such a powerful metaphor

work will be used on Web 2.0 and it’s

as Web 2.0(Wyatt, 2004).

economic foundation of this metaphor to further elaborate on the matter. Finally, the Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

role of the Web 2.0 metaphor in the socio-

(1999) have warned for the coming of new

technological change that has been

actors that would attempt to redefine the

documented by several social scholars

Internet and “to effect new, and perhaps

through research done on social network

incompatible, kinds of closure” (1999:682).

sites will be discussed. The conclusion

They had already recognized this steering

proposes several effects that the Web 2.0

effect metaphors were having on the new

metaphor has had on our research and

Internet user:

understanding of mapping the Internet on a conceptual and theoretical level. 2.

"An ever growing number of people are coming into contact with the Internet in an ever-expanding range of contexts, including

Metaphors

Mapping the Internet has always relied on conventional cartographic metaphors (Packwood, 2004). In order to better understand what Web 2.0 is undergoing as a metaphor, let us first look back at a similar situation presented during the early 90’s. When the Internet was once promoted as a political promise for democratization, as

education, entertainment, shopping and work. As a result, the Internet enters more widely into public debate. Faced with this new phenomenon, people and organizations try to make it familiar by using metaphor, by comparing it to something they already know. The range of metaphors currently on offer reveals a great deal about how different actors perceive its current and future

Postrel (1998) explains:

functions" "An earlier Clinton/Gore plan to overlay the

(1999:695)

Net with a centrally planned and federally funded information superhighway, their bridge to the future isn't as neutral as it appears. It carries important ideas: The future must be brought under control, managed and planned -preferably by 'experts'. It cannot simply evolve. The future must be predictable and uniform: We will go from point A to point B with no deviations. A bridge to the future is not an empty cliché. It represents technocracy, the rule of experts"

Thomas and Wyatt (1999) presented examples of both commercial and political nature that attempt to clarify the application of the World Wide Web, finding "highways, railroads, webs, frontiers, tidal waves, matrices, libraries, shopping malls, village squares and town halls all appear in discussions of the internet" (1999: 695). Looking at the often cited work of Tim O’Reilly (2005), Web 2.0 appeared to be a label that referred to the transition of the

(1998: 52)

World Wide Web into a new stage that In their similar research on the effect of

offered new uses and the development of

metaphors within the development of the

services and applications (Harrison and

Internet as an experimental site for

Barthel, 2009). This inherent value of Web

networking of computers and its later

2.0 to corporations had caught many social

transformation into an international commercial network, Thomas and Wyatt Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

scholar’s attention early on, which will be

elements within contemporary online

the focus of this paper later on.

culture and formulates this concern

O’Reilly’s (2005) explanation of the

regarding Web 2.0 as follows:

Web 2.0 metaphor has received a lot of

“We use this term - Web 2.0- simply as an

criticism from people struggling with its

initial sensitizing concept, albeit one that we

exact meaning ever since. Calling at times a

recognize is already contaminated by the

concept, then a mindset, Web 2.0 was also

rhetorical strategies of web designers, the

called “the era when people have come to

sales pattern of commercial futurists, and the

realize that it's not the software that

new cultures discourse of the popular media"

enables the web that matters so much as the

(Beer, 2008)

services that are delivered over the web” (O’Reilly, 2006). Similarly to the work of

2.1

The importance of metaphors

Thomas and Wyatt, words like participation,

So why is it so important to revisit the Web

consumer/producer/prosumer,

2.0 metaphor once again? Because it can

folksonomies and such are repeatedly found

direct the attention to specific elements and

to support and give direction to the Web 2.0

properties. As such, the social aspect of Web

metaphor ever since. In later work, Wyatt

2.0 has been the pinnacle of value in small

(2004) notes that “the future has to be

but real ways for the user, which Beer

discussed in terms of the imaginary […]

(2008) considers an “admittedly

sometimes today’s imaginary becomes

problematic and dubious […] umbrella term

tomorrow’s lived reality” (2004:257).

or sensitizing concept used to describe

Therefore, we can assume that the term

some general shifts toward user-generated

Web 2.0 has first and foremost served as a

content and toward the webtop in place of

signpost to what O’Reilly called “a fuller

the single device” (2008:519). It is indeed

realization of the true potential of the web

this social aspect that had given rise to a

platform” (O’Reilly, 2005).

large body of research on social network sites and software such as Facebook

Though as much as some scholars have taken the description of Web 2.0 for granted, the newness and power of Web 2.0 has recently been increasingly scrutinized (Bassett, 2008; Harrison and Barthel, 2009). In their work on the power of metaphors, Thomas and Wyatt (1999) further elaborate

(www.facebook.com), MySpace (www.myspace.com) and so forth. Yet this increase of attention also causes a pressing need to provide a critical look at this growing ‘rhetoric of democratization’ that has emerged through the Web 2.0 metaphor (Beer, 2008).

on this notion of a metaphor’s powers and properties. Similarly, in his attempt to

As Hansen notes on his work with

investigate the definition of social network

complexity theory later in this journal,

sites in earlier research, Beer (2008)

“phrases as ‘the Internet’ are easily

acknowledges the need to classify certain

conflated with words such as ‘the World Wide Web’ and ‘The Net’” (2009). As

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

mentioned before, Wyatt (2004) argues that “metaphors are thus not only descriptive; they may provide clues to the design intentions of those who use them and, as such, they may help to shape the cognitive framework within which such actors operate" (Wyatt, 2004: 244). Regarding the World Wide Web as a democratizing space filled with virtual citizens, cyberguru John Perry Barlow opined that “by creating a seamless global economic zone, borderless and unregulatable, the Internet calls into

Figure 1.: O’Reilly’s (2005) meme map of Web 2.0

question the very idea of the nation-state” (1996:76). Even in this highly criticized

Many of the properties of Web 2.0 as

manifesto, according to Morrison (2009),

described by O’ Reilly (2005) in Figure 1

“[Barlow’s declaration] asserts and enacts

often already existed in other shapes and

systems of meaning that ultimately

sizes beforehand, though it appears that the

legitimize certain identities, behaviors and

Web 2.0 has had it’s effects on the revival of

realities at the expense of others”

already existing communities, services and

(2009:55).

applications. Jenkins (2006) has

Similarly Wyatt (2004) found six overlapping metaphorical themes in her research on articles in ‘Wired magazine’ about the Internet: revolution, evolution, salvation, progress, universalism, and the 'American dream'. According to her work on the Wired articles, “revolutionary fervor is sometimes mixed with religious imagery" (Wyatt, 2004:252).

documented the increasingly pervasive tendency of media consumers to form a ‘participatory culture’ that create their own media products. These communities often are “networked, collaborative, mobilized in pursuit of common interests in popular culture and produce their own media products in a kind of 'grass roots creativity' enabled by the convergence of old and new media, which pre-dated the appearance of

Looking at the Web 2.0 related

Web 2.0 applications, but is clearly

articles by O’Reilly (2005), many descriptive

supplemented by it” (Harrison and Barthel,

similarities can be found to the investigative

2009: 173). This indeed, appears to be the

work of Wyatt (2004). The properties of the

power of the Web 2.0 metaphor, which has

metaphor therefore require a better look on

repainted a part of ongoing collaborative

its role and employment.

creation of content on the World Wide Web to seem surprisingly fresh and new (Peters, 2009). In her research on ‘the cultural Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

stakes of 2.0’, Caroline Bassett (2008)

"The same society now said to be undergoing

explores this side of the Web 2.0 metaphor:

a computer revolution has long since gotten used to 'revolutions' in laundry detergents,

“As a model with descriptive and performative powers; a model that operates with some force, tending to occlude certain characteristics of contemporary technocultural forms and practices whilst foregrounding others, and tending also to produce a particular assessment of past and future convergence trajectories (what is to be corrected, what is to be realized)”

underarm deodorants, floor wazxes, and other consumer products [...] Those who employ [revolution] to talk about computers and society, however, appear to be making much more serious claims. They offer a powerful metaphor, one that invites us to compare the kind of disruptions seen in political revolutions to the changes we see happening around computer information

(Bassett, 2008).

systems"

Bassett (2008) not only dives into the

(Winner, 1986: 99)

background of the ongoing convergence in online technology and culture, but also

Papacharissi (2009) shows this in the way

highlights how the Web 2.0 metaphor

the design and architectural features of

projects a certain relationship between the

social networks can influence iterations of

forms of practice and forms of architecture

community and identity. Her findings show

of the World Wide Web. It simultaneously

that “technology not only in social

maps a new landscape of the World Wide

networking sites but also in other online

Web and produces a new model for its

social spaces functions architecturally,

evolution. This is exactly where Peters

suggesting particular uses or highlighting

(2009) argues that the work on

technological affordances” (2009: 216).

convergence appears to have been limited:

And so, we find ourselves vigilant

“Manovich (2001) and Jenkins (2006) are

and required to remain critical about the

famous for pointing out how ideas converge

moving powers of the Web 2.0 metaphor, as

easily in digital platforms, yet their emphasis

it slowly becomes an everyday term, very

on digital media overlooks the simple fact

much like Clinton/Gore’s ‘information

that all media contain, constrain and

highway’. We fight this exact occasion

combine fundamental ideas about what

where we might loose sight of the strong

constitutes communication itself”

corporate nature of the Web 2.0 metaphor,

(Peters, 2009:22)

when it becomes so often employed, powerful and steering our understanding of

At the dawn of the big push for consumer grade computers, Winner (1986) had

mapping the Internet on a conceptual and theoretical level:

already criticized the effect of such powerful metaphors:

"As the technology becomes opaque, mysterious, and increasingly black-boxed for Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

a growing proportion of its users and as the

The so called ‘architecture of

future retains its uncertainty, metaphors

participation’ that O’Reilly (2005) talked

about the nature and the implications of the

about, Harrison and Barthel (2009)

Internet continue to influence our views of its

consider to be founded on the exact same

potentials"

corporate nature found in the Web 2.0

(Wyatt, 2004:257)

metaphor:

“What O'Reilly (2005) identifies as "just what

The commercial history of the

metaphor

we mean by Web 2.0" is the "architecture of

Today, users generate the majority of traffic,

participation" created by web enterprises

content and attention that financially drives a large part of services and applications under the umbrella of the Web 2.0 metaphor (Hinchcliffe, 2006). Having been introduced to critically understanding the nature of metaphors, we can now have a closer look to how Web 2.0 "is associated with a set of motivations for business advantage, pinned on what is seen as the novel idea of user-generated content" (Harrison and Barthel, 2009: 173). Criticizing earlier work done on social network sites, Beer (2008) points to one of the inherent properties of the Web 2.0 and social networks that O’Reilly (2005) did not avoid mentioning often enough, namely how “the more difficult and overlooked questions about [social network sites] and other related Web 2.0 phenomena concern the ‘cultural circuit of capitalism’” (2008, 523).

whose applications invite, facilitate, encourage or make it possible for users to interact, share knowledge and information with each other and construct content. O'Reilly (2005) distinguishes between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 companies on the basis of whether they have "embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence" by facilitating user-generated content and capitalizing on user's products for their own survival and profit.” (Harrison and Barthel, 2009: 159) Looking back at figure 1., it is not hard to imagine how the advocates of Web 2.0 have mostly been driven by the potential to create novel and compelling business models, translated in the Web 2.0 meme ‘harnessing collective intelligence’. In their book ‘Wikinomics’ (2006) Tapscott and Williams celebrate these new 'weapons of mass collaboration" that are part of Web 2.0

In his paper on the democratizing effects of the Internet, Barney (2000) attentively notes that "the ownership of network technology is resolutely capitalist

metaphor and "allow thousands upon thousands of individuals and small producers to cocreate products, access markets and delight customers in ways that only large corporations could manage in the

in character; it is private; it is only moderately regulated; and it is acquisitive, accumulative and commercial" (Barney,

past. This is giving rise to new collaborative capabilities and business models that will

2000:8) Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

empower the prepared firm and destroy

content construction on the web takes place

those that fail to adjust" (2006: 11).

in so many different ways and in diverse contexts”

3.1

Déja-vu

(Harrison and Barthel, 2009: 161)

Not much seems to have changed in the commercial promotion of the Internet since Wyatt and Thomas (1999) did their research on the early use metaphors. Before Web 2.0, it was already a user’s habit to find substitutes or add-ons to already existing services, which often enriched or improved

While the Web 2.0 metaphor is often related to the use of this kind of ‘social’ software, we must remember that it is founded upon a business model, a “way of architecting software and businesses” (Hinchcliffe, 2006). It is a metaphor that is currently employed by software developing

older services and applications:

companies that aim to gain from user“With the number of web sites increasing

created content (Harrison and Barthel,

rapidly, users could generally shop around

2009). It is exactly for this reason that Beer

and find a substitute for any site that

(2008) also appears to acknowledge the

enforced inconvenient login procedures,

steering power of Web 2.0 as a metaphor:

where the ratio of advertising to useful content was high or which demanded

“Using an umbrella term like Web 2.0 allows for a series of categories to be fitted within it.

payment"

In short, my suggestion is that in place of a

(1999: 687)

very general vision of these sites as social This impact described by Thomas and Wyatt

network sites, why not use a term like Web

(1999) shows many similarities with they

2.0 to describe the general shift and then fit

way in which O’Reilly (2005) explained the

categories, such as wiki's, folksonomies,

value of Web 2.0. It appears that the very

mashups and social networking within it”

difference between then and now is that

(Beer, 2008: 519)

Web 2.0 as a metaphor gives corporations an extra incentive to capitalize on the social collaborative construction of information and products by their subscribing users. Looking closer to the social aspect of the currently available Web 2.0 services and applications, Harrison and Barthel (2009) recognize a discrepancy within research done on the ‘social software’ that is currently available on the World Wide Web:

Harrison and Barthel (2009), together with Beer(2008), seem to address the same issue here. Namely that of understanding how the Web 2.0 metaphor is causing a revisiting of our understanding of mapping the Internet on a conceptual and theoretical level that considers the economic, social and technical elements associated with this powerful metaphor. Aside from its inherent corporate profit oriented nature, the use of the Web

“Although it is easy to see the value of these

2.0 metaphor creates the notion of

classifications [of social media], neither of

convergence and socio-technical change

them are completely adequate because

(Bassett, 2008).

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

3.2

The process of socio-technical

context within which earlier models and

change

future predictions also figure” (Bassett,

Has the Web 2.0 metaphor sharpened our

2008). If what Bassett (2008) describes is

senses about what the World Wide Web

indeed the case, Harrison and Barthel

has/might become or has it made us eager

(2009) would agree that the Web 2.0

to increasingly take up a capitalistic profit

metaphor has also caused an increase of

minded perspective on Web 2.0 related

participation, since many ”Web 2.0

research? Later in this journal, Stalenhoef

applications enable users with little

(2009) argues that in research on the

technical knowledge to construct and share

blogosphere, scholars still tend to “revert to

their own media and information products,

forcing traditional concepts on new

as they do, for example on social networking

phenomena, pinning them down, rather

websites" (2009: 157). Yet in this journal’s

than exploring them from their practice”

issue, Stalenhoef (2009) still warns for the

(2009:6). If we are to believe Terranova

apparent destiny of user created content to

(2004), better understanding the Web 2.0

“provide a platform for only a few to reach

metaphor can particularly lead us to

many for many to reach a few” (2009: 8).

increasingly understand how to harness the intrinsic nature of the World Wide Web:

It is in this driving effect of the Web 2.0 metaphor that a large part of consumers

"Simultaneously voluntarily given and

might have discovered the ‘second’ coming

unwaged, enjoyed and exploited, free labor

of the World Wide Web, which is now

on the Net includes the activity of building

flooded with easy to use three step

websites, modifying software packages,

registration processes and tools to enhance

reading and participating in mailing lists in

one’s life (Fallows, 2006). This increasing

mailing lists and building virtual spaces. Far

popularity of free services and applications

from being an 'unreal' empty space, the

“represent non-specialist uses of the

Internet is animated by cultural and

Internet that can ignore effectively the

technical labour through and through, a

engineering, let alone economic,

continuous production of value which is

infrastructures of which the system’s

completely immanent in the flows of network

architecture is composed” (Packwood,

society at large”

2004).

(Terranova, 2004:74)

Conclusion

Bassett (2008) argues that “there is no net

Until now, this paper examined how

out there waiting to be ‘fully realized’. Once

metaphors can influence public debate,

the early models have been corrected and

policy, and theory (Wyatt, 2004). Also, we

implemented, there is only what is

have seen how the building blocks of the

produced through a complex and ongoing

Web 2.0 metaphor can be found in the

process: the materialization of a

corporate gain that can be made by

technocultural form in particular historical

harnessing the collaborative intelligence of

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

the online participation of users (Beer,

and scholars will then result in fully

2008). Does the Web 2.0 metaphor signify a

reassess or re-contextualise the typologies

change in perspective of the World Wide

of such services and applications as social

Web? Looking at Thomas and Wyatt’s

network sites (Beer, 2008). As Bassett

(1999) work on metaphors once more, it

(2008) explains, “2.0 itself is productively

seems that the origin of the Web 2.0

considered not only as an industrial model,

metaphor comes "from a commercial

but as a cultural imaginary, as is Jenkins

perspective [where] the 'old' Internet has

account of contemporary convergence”

been routinely seen as ‘not ready for

(2008).

business' because it was too open, too amateur and too steeped in academic/nerd culture” (1999: 688).

It is important to keep the Web 2.0 metaphor open, revisit it on a frequent basis and use the critical view we bestow upon it

Yet it is the duty of scholars to keep

to review the work and research of social

this in mind at all times during research on

scholars that take the effort of analyzing

the effects of Web 2.0 related software,

social network sites and other services and

services and applications, in order to

applications that have risen in popularity

prevent the Web 2.0 metaphor from

since the dawn of the Web 2.0 metaphor.

steering their work into the direction of the

Wyatt (2004) reminds us why:

Web 2.0 architecture or business model. The architectural designs in social networks, fueled by the Web 2.0 metaphor, often “helped to declare the situational geography of the network to its members, thus explaining how the network will serve as a social setting for interaction” (Papacharissi, 2009: 216). It is this kind of convergence that must be prevented from

"As the technology becomes opaque, mysterious, and increasingly black-boxed for a growing proportion of its users and as the future retains its uncertainty, metaphors about the nature and the implications of the Internet continue to influence our views of its potentials" (2004:257)

being ignored in Web 2.0 related research,

Mapping how the Web 2.0 metaphor has

such as work done on social network sites.

changed our understanding of mapping the

Therefore, it is important to remember, as Wyatt (2004) points out, that “presenting technology as the asocial mechanism for emancipation removes people from the historical process of change, which might occur in different ways in different places” (2004: 253). Fully understanding the Web 2.0 metaphor and the way it is handled by media, politicians

Internet on a conceptual and theoretical level therefore becomes quite the challenge. As maps, they inherently must remain metaphorical as they are but an abbreviation of what is actually happening (Packwood, 2004). It will require a combined analyses of understanding how the metaphor has influenced and directed commercially designed software architectures, the users and their symbiotic

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

relationship (Bassett, 2008). Research on

(Papacharissi, 2009). Mapping these

the Web’s topology is constantly changing.

relationships will not be an easy task, but

Mapping the existence and growth of this

combined with Thomas and Wyatt’s

install free software, social network

(1999/2004) warnings could prevent

architectures and user generated content

media, public and academia from being

have become the next challenge in mapping

carried away any further by the Web 2.0

the Internet.

metaphor and its many memes.

As this paper has shown, social

Analyzing earlier research done on

scholars in areas such as research on social

the blogosphere, Stalenhoef (2009) will

network sites can make a lot of progress by

discuss why it is hard to perceive the

analyzing how either software architecture

blogosphere as a whole, but also elaborates

is designed in order to create a certain

on the overuse of the concept of

response from the user, or how the user

‘community’.

circumvents the existing architecture

References Abbate, J. (2000) Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Barlow, J.P. (1996) Thinking Locally, Acting Globally. Time Magazine, p 76. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983964-2,00.html [Accessed on 20-032009] Barney, D. (2000) Prometheus Wired: The Hope for Democracy in the Age of Network Technology. Vancouver: University of Britisch Columbia Press. Bassett, C. (2008) New Maps for Old?: The Cultural Stakes of '2.0'. Fibreculture Journal(13). ISSN: 1449-1443. http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue13/issue13_bassett.html Beer, D. and Burrows, R. (2007) Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations, Sociological Research Online 12(5). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/5/17.html [Accessed on 20-03-2009] Berry, D (2007) A Contribution to a Political Economy of Open Source and Free Culture, in McMillan F (ed) New Directions in Copyright Law. London: Edward Elgar, 193-223. Drezner, D.W. (2004) ‘The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back in’, Political Science Quarterly 119(3): 477-498 Fallows, J. (2006) Homo Conexus A veteran technology commentator attempts to live Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

entirely on Web 2.0 for two weeks. TechnologyReview.com http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17061&ch=infotech&a=f [Accessed on 29-03-2009] Hansen, S. C. (2009) Mapping Quality: Grasping the Emergent World Wide Web. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 42 -51. Hardey, M. (2007) The City in the Age of Web 2.0: A New Synergistic Relationship between Place and People. Information, Communication and Society 10(6), 867-884 Harrison, T.M and Barthel, B. (2009) Wielding new media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products. New Media Society 2008; 11; 155 http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1-2/155 [Accessed on 11-03-2009] Hinchcliffe, D. (2006) The State of Web 2.0. Dion Hinchcliffe's Web 2.0 Blog http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm [Accessed on 23-03-2009] Morrison, A. H. (2009) An impossible future: John Perry Barlow's 'Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace'. New Media & Society 11: 53-71. http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/1-2/53 [Accessed on 11-03-2009] O’Reilly, T. (2006) Levels of the Game: The Hierarchy of Web 2.0 Applications, O’Reilly Radar. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_game.html [Accessed on 20-03-2009] O’Reilly, T. (2006) Not 2.0?, O’Reilly Radar. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/07/levels_of_the_game.html [Accessed on 20-03-2009] O'Reilly, T (2005) 'What Is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software.' Tim.oreilly.com. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html [Accessed on 20-02-2009] Packwood, N. (2004) `Geography of the Blogosphere: Representing the Culture, Ecology and Community of Weblogs', Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs; at: blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/geography_of_the_blogosphere.html [Accessed on 1103-2009] Peters, B (2009) And lead us not into thinking the new is new: a bibliographic case for new media history. New Media & Society 11: 13-30 http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/12/13 [Accessed on 11-03-2009] Postrel, V. (1998) Technocracy R.I.P. Wired January 1998, 52-56.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Räsänen, P. (2008) Media and communication technology preferences in Finland in 1999 and 2004 The aftermath of the ICT revolution? New Media Society 2008; 10; 225 http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/2/225 [Accessed on 11-03-2009] Scholte, J.A. (2000) Globalization: A Critical Introduction. New York: St. Martin’s Press Stalenhoef, L.R. (2009) Mapping a Community in the Blogosphere. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 17 – 31. Tapscott, D. and Williams, A.D. (2006) Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin. Terranova, T. (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press Thomas, G. and Wyatt, S. (1999) ‘Shaping Cyberspace: Interpreting and Transforming the Internet’, Research Policy 28(7): 681-698 Winner, L. (1986) The whale and the reactor. A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wyatt, S. (2004) Danger! Metaphors at Work in Economics, Geophysiology, and the Internet, Science, Technology and Human Values 29(2): 242-261

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Mapping a Community in the Blogosphere Lukie R. Stalenhoef Utrecht University (3027740) Department of New Media Studies L.R.Stalenhoef@students.uu.nl

Abstract The blogosphere, representing all the blogs on the web, is often perceived as a vital public sphere and is said to be a collective of interconnected blogs in which virtual communities are formed by means of linking back-andforth. However, it is problematic to generalize about the blogosphere because of its size, diversity of content and variation in format. The blogs at the center of the blogosphere have characteristics that those on the periphery often do not share. Meaning is imposed by academics as they start writing about it and problems arise when researchers define the blogosphere by its interconnecting linking structure, without taking the problems of inequality the theory of the power law brings to the blogosphere into consideration. The sheer complexity of the blogosphere makes it not only hard to perceive the blogosphere as a community, but also invites us to critically look upon the overuse of the concept of community and propose alternatives since revision of this term seems necessary.

Introduction: the blogosphere

The proliferation of new spaces for communication on the Internet has evoked scholarship in various fields of study and

challenged researchers to seek and address the social, rhetorical and discursive implications. Recently, a new object for

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

study has emerged of great rhetorical

Blogs are often defined as

impact: the ‘weblog’. To perceive a weblog

frequently updated webpages, containing

as merely another tool to communicate with

several posts from one or multiple authors

online is said to be insufficient, rather it

(knows as ‘bloggers’). When looking

should, according to a majority of scholars,

beneath the content of weblogs, which can

be a tool which provides new possibilities

be both of personal and professional nature,

for the Internet as a rhetorical space. Some

what characterizes blogs are their form and

would argue that weblogs have

function: all posts are time-stamped with

revolutionized the way we receive

the most recent post on top, creating a

information and connect with each other in

reverse chronological structure with an

online environments, allowing anyone’s

expectation of updates. Additionally, blogs

voice to be heard (Gurak et al. 2004).

often provide links to other web content

The blogosphere, the universe of

and a place for readers to leave comments

weblogs on the web, is immense (Eveland &

and contain a list of other blogs that the

Dylko 2007). According to search engine

blogger reads or considers to be of high

Technorati.com, there were more than 32,4

quality, a technological feature called a

million weblogs available on the Internet as

‘blogroll’ (Blanchard 2004, Gurak et al.

of the end of March 2006 and since then,

2004, Miller & Shepherd 2004, Tremayne

this number has only increased (2008). To

2007).

illustrate this, estimations were made in their State of the Blogosphere 2008 report

1.1

The blogosphere as ‘public

that there are approximately 184 million

sphere’

bloggers worldwide and that 900.000

Scholarly research about blogging has

weblog ‘posts’ (weblog entries) are made

increased the last couple of years and has

every 24 hours.The first weblog

focussed merely on blogs concerned with

servicepages (or ‘blogs’ for short), a term

external events since terrorist acts and

coined by Jorn Barger, were launched

political campaigns since, for instance the

between 1994 and 1998 and became

rise of ‘war’ blogs, has attracted the

popular mainly because of the introduction

attention of mainstream news media,

of new, no-cost, easy-to-use content

contributing to the popularization and

management tools in 1999 which didn’t

adaption to this new mode of computer-

require knowledge of HTML and Java tools

mediated-communication (CMC) (Herring et

(Gurak et al. 2004, Miller & Shepherd 2004).

al. 2007). These topics of interest involve

This enabled people at various levels of

the impact of bloggers as “citizen

computer skill to create and maintain a blog.

journalists” (Gillmor 2003, Lasica 2003),

Another reason for the popularity of blogs is

“public intellectualists” (Park 2003) and

that these webpages are perceived as more

“opinion leaders” (Delwiche 2004), terms

flexible and interactive than other print or

illustrating how “the blogosphere is clearly

digital publication formats (Herring et al.

a derivative of the public sphere”

2007).

(Tremayne 2007: vii). Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Since the time the Internet became

(2007: 228)

open to the public in the 90’s, it has tantalized those interested in

The democratic potential of weblogs

communications and media with its

becomes apparent when perceiving it as a

potential for realizing a public sphere as

collection of web texts that offer open

Internet offers places and situations in

participation since they, in contrast to print

which people meet to discuss matters of

and broadcast media, allow or encourage

public concern (Baoill 2004, Thompson

two-way communication and offer a place

2003). German philosopher and sociologist

where people meet to discuss matters of

Habermas is best known for his

public concern (Baoill 2004). Participation

conceptualization of the public sphere and

in the blogosphere is, besides offering a way

defines it, in short, as:

in which it can be understood as a virtual sphere, also used to underline the

“[…] a domain for our social life in which such

communal aspect of blogging, since the

a thing as public opinion can be formed.

public nature of a weblog suggests a need to

Access to the public sphere is open in

communicate (Mortensen 2004)

principle to all citizens. A portion of the public sphere is constituted in every

1.2

The blogosphere as community

conversation in which private persons come

When bloggers talk about blogging, two

together to form a public”

themes are ubiquitous: self-expression and

(Habermas, as quoted in Thompson 2003:

community development (Miller &

Shepherd 2004). The latter is of significant importance. Not only bloggers, but also a

Blogging has made a place for itself as a

sufficient amount of researchers use the

means of gathering information about and

term ‘virtual community’ quite frequently to

commenting on public events. As a result,

refer to vastly different CMC groups

the blogosphere, besides representing a

(Blanchard 2004). Discussing specifically

collection blogs, is also referred to as a

the blogosphere, blogs are often claimed to

‘virtual sphere’ or a ‘vital public sphere’

“contain social interactions” (Hoppmann

(Baoill 2004, Thompson 2003, Tremayne

2004), to form a “virtual community” (Zhou

2007). Rutigliano (2007), in connecting

2007) or to contribute to a “sense of

blogs to civic journalism, illustrates this by

community” (Blanchard 2004) online.

arguing that

Consequently, the blogosphere is said to be a collective of interconnected blogs in which

“blogs can potentially accommodate mass

virtual communities are formed and is thus

participation and remain open and

called upon as “a community” (Lampa 2004,

competitive, thereby providing the more

Miller & Shepherd 2004, Tremayne 2007)

democratic public sphere that civic

Since the late 19th century,

journalists and blog enthusiasts desire”

“sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists and cultural prophets have kept

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

the social quest for community in the

quoted in Hoppmann 2004: 1). Today, the

limelight of popular discourse” (Fernback

concept of a virtual community is

2007: 50). The ideas about a communal

considered to be a significant social

existence vary since social theorists in the

construct and many definitions have

late 19th century conceive communities to

appeared in the literature. Generally, a

be place-based social interactions and

virtual community is perceived to be

collective value systems, while, on the

formed by people with a wish for

contrary, other theorists suggest a

interaction that share a particular interest,

contemporary view of community as less

use computer system to interact and

place based and more process oriented

maintain stable relationships over time.

(Fernback 2007). For instance, Anderson

Thereby, the virtual community can

(2004) has argued that nearly all

overcome the space and time barriers to

communities to which human beings belong

interact that exist in traditional

are imagined in some manner or another

communities.

(Anderson, as quoted in Lampa (2004): 2). In order to speak of virtual

Jones (1997), known for his theory of a ‘virtual settlement’ argues against

communities, the contemporary

equating virtual communities with the

conceptualization of a community involves

cyber-places they inhabit and proposes that

statements in which a community is

the virtual settlement within which virtual

conceived to be “materially analogous to

communities exist should be considered (as

physical space” or to “contain geographic

mentioned in Efimova & Hendrick 2005). In

and physical and geographic properties”

response, it is argued that virtual

(Benedikt 1991). Furthermore, it is claimed

settlements are necessary, but not sufficient

that virtual communities perform the

conditions for a virtual community

solidifying functions of traditional, pre-

(Blanchard 2004). Furthermore, in case of

industrial communities (Rheingold, as

weblog communities, it is usually difficult to

mentioned in Fernback (2007)) and that

find a single shared space as a point of

online groups, as richly developed cultures,

departure (Efimova & Hendrick 2005).

transform the Internet into a new

To be able to find communities in

communal space (Baym 1995), possibly

the blogosphere and in response to Jones’

strengthening the impulse of humanity to

call for a ‘virtual settlement’, many

create and sustain community (Miller

researchers have adopted the

1996).

conceptualisation of a ‘sense of community’ The concept of virtual community

(SOC) (Blanchard 2004) and have studied

was first introduced by Howard Rheingold

hyperlink structures in order to find weblog

in 1994 who regarded Internet as bringing

communities. However, as will be made

together people on the basis of shared

clear in this paper, it is rather problematic

interests and values and defined the virtual

to use the concept of community and

community as a “self-defined electronic

hyperlink studies in order to define the

network of interactive communication” (as

blogosphere. Actually, defining the

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

blogosphere itself also bring along problems

not be as (inter)active as thought of. Two

for meaning is imposed through systems of

thirds of public weblogs created via

representation and as will be shown, the

centralised hosting services have not been

causes of preferential attachment should be

updated in two months and thus considered

accounted for when mapping the

abandoned. Furthermore, 1.09 million of the

blogosphere.

weblogs created appear to be ‘one-day wonders’; blogs containing just one post.

“The Blogging iceberg”

As a result, this data amongst others, started an ongoing debate in the

Although there seems to be a consensus

weblog research community, concerning the

view concerning the blogosphere, the

actual interactivity of an average weblog

definitions given in the previous chapter

(Efimova & Hendrick 2005). For instance, it

might not be as clear-cut as they appear to

is found that a randomly selected weblog

be. As will be pointed out, it is rather

shows limited interactivity and seldom links

complicated to generalize about the

to other weblogs (Herring et al. 2004) and

blogosphere. A clear separation can be seen

that on a blog, instead of the many-to-many

between an active, highly social core and a

communication found in much group CMC,

large periphery that is disengaged from that

“there tends to be a one-to-many form of

core. Therefore, making assumptions and

communication from the author to the

conclusions should be done with caution

readers” (Blanchard 2004: 1). Even the

(Lampa 2004).

most popular blogs seem to have little

This apparent separation is

choice but to function like broadcast media

demonstrated by ‘The Blogging iceberg’

with low levels of interactivity due to high

(2003), a survey conducted by the Persues

traffic (Rutigliano 2007).

Development company. It concludes that the

Himmer (2004) addresses the

blogosphere takes on the form of an iceberg

weblog from an explicitly literary

since blogs above the ‘waterline’ – those

perspective and argues that many

which are frequently updated, widely read

definitions of the weblog are insufficient, as

and consistently linked – represent the

“they rely on categories such as content or

conception of blogs in the public mind, but

mode of delivery, which are not adequate to

are not representative of blogs in general.

encompass the large variety of texts that

Actually, it appeared that a teenage girl who

may be called weblogs”. In line with this,

uses a blog twice a month to update her

Lampa (2004) states that “in order to

friends and classmates on the happening in

understand the nature of the blogosphere’s

her life writes the ‘typical blog’ (Lampa

community as a whole, one must

2004).

acknowledge the differences between the The data accumulated by the

forms of blogging as well as the inherent

Persues survey (2003), clearly shows that it

value of each”. Thompson (2003) adds that

is hard to make a case for the blogosphere

“attempts to define weblogs by content are

as a community, as the blogosphere might

readily defeated, but defining them by form

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

is as pointless as defining novels by page

interpretations. For instance, when weblogs

count and layout” (3).

are defined by their software, instant exclusion is created through terms that

2.1

The academic paradox

appear to be neutral and obvious, but

As we have seen in the previous article by

actually work as constructions as those

Micu (2009), the explanation of the web 2.0

without a certain level of technical skill are

metaphor has received a lot of criticism

excluded. As a result, Mortensen (2004)

from people struggling with its exact

asserts that if blogging can be defined

meaning. Though as much as some scholars

within the known genres and boundaries, it

have taken the description for granted there

can also be restricted and controlled

is no unanimity concerning its classification

according to known rules and made to

as it is called both a concept and a mindset.

submit to already predefined aesthetics.

As a result, mapping the phenomenon of

Writing about the blogosphere, in

web 2.0 has, like mapping the blogosphere

this context, could be risky for scholars as it

been dispersed and fragmented all along.

seems that they revert to forcing traditional

In January 2004, there was a

concepts on new phenomena, pinning them

discussion amongst academic bloggers

down, rather than exploring them from

concerning the categorisation of blogs. This

their practice (Mortensen 2004). This might

was a result of Danah Boyd’s (2004)

be a matter of conviction since, for instance,

exclusion of journals and diaries when

“a sample including groups with an explicit

talking about blogs and the urgent need for

community mission would yield the result

scholars to classify blogs. Mortensen’s

of finding a community a priori” (Fernback

article Weblogs and the dilemma of

2007: 56). As a way out of studying blogs

Academia (2004) dives into this subject

colonized by the dominant culture, we

matter by introducing the academic paradox

should perhaps expand the codes within

which means, in this context, that

which we create meaning by learning about other meanings and practices.

“studying and writing about a phenomenon within a pedagogic or academic setting

2.2

The Hyperlink Network Analysis

inevitably means exercising symbolic

As was previous stated, the blogosphere is

violence, imposing meaning according to one

defined through its connectedness and

particular system of understanding and

referred to as “the collective of blogs and

disregarding an unknown universe of

the links that connect them” (Tremayne

potential alternative meanings”

2007: vii). Studying how blogs are

(3)

connected is a core issue of scholars since the links, given between blogs, are said to

Thus, as academics begin to study and use

have relevance for they are “essential for

weblogs, meaning is imposed through

creating the central core to the

systems of representation, thereby

blogosphere” (Lampa 2004), “the

excluding other possible meanings and

distinguishing feature of the blog”

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

(Hourihan 2002) or “communication

to interpret link analysis research. Since

evidence” (Zhou 2007). The particular

previous research has shown that links can

relevance for studying the linking structure

be interpreted differently and moreover,

of weblogs can be found in the fact that a

some links don’t even have a

significant amount of scholars agree that it

communication role, there’s a danger in

lays out the social ties that bind bloggers

making untested assumptions about web-

into a community (Tremayne 2007).

related behaviour (Thelwall 2006).

As will be elaborated on by Pouw

Therefore, we should be aware of the way in

(2009), Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a

which HNA is a limited option for defining

theory used quite often for the

the blogosphere and its social character and

configuration of networks. A newly

“could break down the sensual element of

emerging methodology, used for revealing

blogging into standardized categories”

the social structures in the blogosphere, is

(Mortensen 2004: 3).

the Hyperlink Network Analysis (HNA). Used to interpret the social or

2.3

communication structure among social

While quantitative research methods like

actors, HNA is said not only to reveal the

the HNA has its shortcomings, qualitative

social structure of the Internet, but can also

methods are suitable for examining the

be used to examine why websites are

process of human meaning construction for

connected (Park 2003).

it attempts to understand the mechanisms

Although link analysis in various

A qualitative approach

of social processes, and to comprehend and

forms is now an established technique in

explain why both actors and processes are

many different subjects, we encounter two

as they are (Fernback 2007: 56). A

problems when we define the blogosphere

quantitative study puts the participant

by its linked blogs. First of all, as has been

observing at an advantage since a context is

shown by the Persues study (2003), the

understood according to the participants’

perception of blogging as a back-and-forth

own frame of reference. Therefore,

exchange only describes a very small

qualitative research could be a way out of

minority of the blogosphere (2-7 %). The

the academic paradox since “defining

vast majority of users who blog casually or

weblogs should allow for the users’

infrequently for the benefits of their fiends

experiences” (Mortensen 2004: 5).

and family in the ‘real world’, do not link to

An example of a case study that, in

the work of other bloggers and

order to assess interactivity, asked

consequently, for them, the blogosphere

respondents open ended questions in

does not exist in the hyperlinked

addition to the quantitative questions was

connections which are said to bind blogs

conducted by Blanchard (2004). To examine

(Blanchard 2004, Lampa 2004).

whether blogs can be considered to be

Secondly, we encounter a problem

virtual communities, she studied a very

when interpreting links. There is no

active blog (The Julie/Julia Project) which

unanimity concerning the question of how

was receiving over 7,000 hits per day

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

during its most popular period, using the sense of community (SOC) measure which

amount of traffic” (Shirky 2003: 46). In 1999, Barabasi, in his attempt to

can be said to exist of four characteristics:

map the topology of the web, introduced the

feelings of membership, feelings of

concept of scale-free networks to describe

influence, integration and fulfilment of

the class of networks that exhibit a power-

needs and shared emotional connection

law distribution which indicates that the

(Blanchard 2004).

development of large networks is governed

Although the study showed that,

by robust self-organizing phenomena that

according to the quantitative analysis, the

go beyond the particulars of the individual

members of the blog showed a moderate

system (Barabási & Albert 1991). Later on,

sense of community, the qualitative

Hansen (2009) will elaborate on the

responses indicated that despite liking the

topology of the web, for now, the focus will

blog, the majority of the people did not

be on the power-law distribution. To

consider it a community in the traditional

explain the appearance of the power-law

sense. The blog appeared to be conceived

distribution, two key features are isolated:

limited in the amount of public interaction

growth and preferential attachment.

in comparison with other CMC groups,

Together, these principles explain how a

stressing out the importance of moving

small number of nodes in a network become

beyond quantitative approaches in order to

heavily linked while most remain isolated.

attain a user-oriented view on community

In this way, the “rich get richer” and heavily

building in the blogosphere, leading us

skewed link distributions result. (Tremayne

again to reconsider how interactive the

2007: xi).

blogosphere actually is and how clear-cut the term ‘community’ is.

What are the causes of preferred attachment in the blogosphere? According to Shirky (2003), what matters is that

2.4

The power law of the

diversity and a freedom of choice create

blogosphere

inequality, and the greater the diversity, the

Apparently, blogs may have some particular

more extreme the inequality. Consequently,

challenges in creating a critical mass of

given the ubiquity of power law

participants with a sense of community. A

distributions, “asking whether there is

critical mass which may only be found on

inequality in the weblog world is the wrong

the top of the iceberg and constitutes of a

question, since the answer is always yes.

small set of bloggers who account for a

The question to ask is “is the inequality

majority of the traffic in the weblog world,

fair?” (50).

also referred to as the ‘A-list’. The latter is

Since “the Web’s large-scale

usually lamented for as the rise of this A-list

topology enforces more severe limitations

creates a power law distribution: “in

on our behaviour and visibility on the Web

systems where many people are free to

than government or industry could ever

chose between many options, a small subset

achieve by tinkering with the code”

of the whole will get a disproportionate

(Barabási 2002: 175), it seems relevant to

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

consider what problems this apparent

external rank and the potential for a

uneven distribution of power might give for

rational debate of any topic until consensus

the blogosphere. For instance, this

is achieved” (1).

inequality seems to contradict the argument

While weblogs are considered a

that blogs give everyone a choice. Instead,

platform for everyone to publish content

“the blogosphere’s apparent destiny overall

with little investment and no barrier entry,

is to provide a platform for only a few to

this seems not the case. First of all, the time

reach many and for many to reach a few”

commitment required to provide a quality

(Tremayne 2007: 229).

weblog makes it attractive to only a certain group of society. Second of all, when one

2.5

Blogging publically

critically considers global Internet access

While the blogosphere at first glance might

and usage, certain people are not only

seem equal, the power-law distribution of

discouraged, but, moreover, disabled from

the web invites us to think otherwise.

blogging (Baoill 2004). Today, blogs are just

Several researchers also found the

not universally available.

blogosphere to be not as equal as was

Furthermore, due to the fact that

thought of at first. They have come to this

the links to blogs, just like on the web in

conclusion after they had taken the

general, follow a power law distribution and

potential of the blogosphere for revising the

the external relations someone has is a

public sphere into reconsideration.

significant factor for success, some people in

According to them, several aspects of

the blogosphere are privileged over others.

blogging fail to meet an idealized model for

As a result, concerning the last necessary

a public sphere (Baoill 2004, Fernback

criterion, this means that discussion centers

2007, Papacharissi 2002). Like Baoill

around a small number of topics and

(2004) puts it:

disadvantages in a discussion of locallyfocused topics, meaning that not all topics

“there are a number of structural

are equally subject to rational debate (Baoill

impediments in the current implementation

2004). This is also why Thompson states

of weblogs – both in terms of production and

that “if […] we read more broadly among

reception – that seriously damage any claim

weblogs, we are likely to find not a public

of the blogosphere to be a strong public

sphere, but a lot of bubbles isolating writers

sphere”

by ideology” (2003: 2).

(1) 3.

Mapping a community

In order to come up with this conclusion, Baoill (2004) measured the efficacy of

The previous chapter has made clear that it

weblogs as a public sphere according to the

is difficult to generalize about the

necessary criterion for meeting Habermas’

blogosphere because of its size and diversity

model of an ideal public sphere, formulated

of content. The blogs at the center of the

as: “inclusivity of access, a disregard for

blogosphere have characteristics that those

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

on the periphery often do not share.

3.1

The concept of virtual

Consequently, “[w]hen one makes a claim

community

about the nature of the blogosphere, it is

Increasingly, scholars are not only

important to consider which part of it is

recognizing the sheer complexities

under consideration” (Tremayne 2007: vii).

surrounding the blogosphere, but also the

The complexity of the blogosphere together

complexities inherent in the study of online

with the rapidity of its growth present a

community. As Rheingold (1992) had

challenge for understanding it in terms of

already pointed out:

social space since: “when a group of people remain in “[t]he scale of the blogosphere presents a

communication with one another for

challenge in raw numbers whose

extended periods of time, the question of

comprehensive complexity of relationship is

whether it is a community arises. Virtual

several orders of magnitude greater than

communities might be real communities, they

those apparent in traditional mass media. We

might be pseudocommunities or they might

are thrown back upon the limits of our

be something entirely new in the realm of

nervous systems to cognize relationships of

social contracts”

such scale and complexity”

(as quoted in Fernback & Thompson 2002:

(Packwood 2004: 7)

10)

According to Barabási (2002), we must not

Do we even know what we mean with a

only worry about the complexity of the

‘community’? Fernback & Thompson

blogosphere, but ask ourselves if we are

(2002), in showing the problematic

able to locate a community on “such a

character of the notion of community,

gigantic web” (171). The web is far from

expressed their concern with the public

being a homogeneous sea of nodes and links

likely to forget what it means to form a true

and hosts many villages and cities that

community, making it a rather thin and

appear as overlapping communities. This is

amorphous concept. Some community

actually what seems the problem as

analysts might even argue that calling any

Barabási argues that, while trying to find a

online group a virtual community

proper definition for web-based

represents yet another example of the

communities, everybody has slight different

overuse of the term ‘community’ to the

criteria for them. There are no sharp

point that the concept has lost any real

boundaries to distinguish communities and

meaning (Fernback 2007). Since it has no

there is no efficient algorithm or shared

‘positive opposing’ term and the discourse

mental model for doing so (Fernback &

about the term ‘community’ tends to be

Thompson 2002). As a result, “uncovering

totalizing, it increasingly becomes an empty,

[communities] is simply out of the question”

hollow and diluted word (Fernback 2007,

(Fernback & Thompson 2002: 172).

Harris 1989). Consequently, according to Fernback (2007) the metaphor of

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

community is “inadequate and

purposes, but we might wonder of what

inappropriate” (62).

particular interest communities are from a

It seems relevant to search for the

marketing perspective. Kozinets (2002), in

reasons behind the urge to find, define and

developing ‘netnography’ as an online

distinguish communities in the blogosphere

marketing research technique for providing

since this seems like an almost impossible, if

consumer insight, acknowledges that virtual

not inadequate, goal. Why does this overuse

communities can be used by individuals to

exist? What is so important about being a

take part in discussions in order to inform

virtual community that all these CMC

and influence fellow consumers about

groups claim to be one? ‘The hunger for

products, brands or organizations.

communities’, as Rheingold calls it, seems to

Furthermore, active participation in virtual

be not only of clear sociological interest, but

communities may favour higher levels of

is also increasing every day from a

individuals’ loyalty to the interest around

marketing perspective (Packwood 2004,

which the community is developed (Koh &

Kozinets 2002) since “in the quest for a

Kim 2004).

voice, for power and influence […], the blog can be a tool” (Mortensen 2004: 5). As the concept of virtual

Through the conceptual analysis of the virtual community and the descriptive study of five real cases of companies that

community has been merely defined from a

use virtual communities in their online

social point of view, the need for looking at

marketing strategies, Flavian & Guinaliu

it from a marketing perspective, wherein

(2005) have shown that virtual brand

the virtual community functions as a

communities provide highly significant

strategy that can increase the chance of

benefits in terms of market segmentation,

success in the distribution of products over

differentiated product distribution and

the Internet, is stressed out (Flavian &

brand awareness. This might explain why

Guinaliu 2005). As Micu (2009) already

Fernback (2007) has found that, in his

mentioned earlier on, we should be aware

attempt to examine online social

of the power which is exercised by web

relationships, free from controversy and

enterprises, employing metaphors to sell

structural-functional baggage, online social

products. Technorati, renowned for its

interaction has a rather commercial or

statistics on the blogosphere, has reported

functional character for respondents which

that four in five bloggers post brand or

does not contribute to a sense of

product reviews. As a result, one-third of

community.

bloggers have been approached to by brand advocates and the majority of bloggers

3.2

currently have advertising on their blogs

The previously made assumptions about the

(2008).

problematic nature of the concept of These statistics clearly show how

Alternatives for communities

community have called for alternate

virtual communities are becoming

viewpoints. As is stressed out by Harris

increasingly important for marketing

(1989) “we need a vocabulary that will

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

allow us to talk about certain forces as

communities continue, but more as

social rather than communal, as involving

sparsely-knit, spatially-dispersed social

power but not always consent” (21).

networks rather than as densely-knit,

Similarly, Castells suggests that community

village-like local groups.

in the Internet era needs to be redefined

In declaring the usefulness of

and should be “de-emphasizing its cultural

network analysis, Rutigliano (2007) argues

component […] and de-linking its social

that “to compare the reality of blogs to their

existence from a single kind of material

hype, it is pivotal to consider them in the

support” (as quoted in Fernback 2007: 52).

context of network theory” (2007: 225).

Based on Castells’ notion of the

Fernback (2007) also acknowledges the

‘network society’, Wittel (2001) asserts that

usefulness of network analysis and suggests

the concept of ‘network sociality’ will

that community is an evolving process and

replace the concept of ‘community’. While

that ‘commitment’ is the truly desired social

he uses some of the key factors of Castells,

ideal in social interaction, whether online of

Wittel focuses not on the networks

offline. ‘Commitment’ lets us understand

themselves, but on the building of networks

how users of computer networks forge

and perceives networking as a strategy to

individual relationships that are purposeful

foster social bonds. This new concept thus

and less value-laden, ultimately making it

describes social relations turning into social

possible to move beyond the nostalgic ideal

capital, where the main object is not to have

of community.

but to do relationships. Although this concept might be

Conlusion

incomplete, as Wittel acknowledges himself (Hoppmann 2004), similar concepts are

We should not try to fit the concept of a

proposed which also reckon the conception

virtual community on the blogosphere

of network analysis as a constructive way of

without reconsidering what we mean with it

examining online social relationships

or how it is employed. As Micu (2009) has

without a priori assumptions of community.

already pointed out, it seems that certain

For instance, the concept of ‘networked

concepts surrounding the Internet are not

individualism’, coined by Wellmann (2001),

as easily defined as we might think they are.

leads us towards perceiving online relations

When mapping the blogosphere as an

as a loosely structured and interpersonal

interconnected community we encounter

way of networking. This concept both

difficulties for it not clear how we define a

accounts for the networked and the

typical blog or a virtual community and how

individualistic nature of our society as

to study it in order to produce a

Wellman (2001) states that “communities

representative view on those two terms, if

started changing from groups to networks

that is even possible.

well before the advent of the Internet” (3).

In the end, it thus seems risky to

This is also being confirmed by other

generalize about the blogosphere. The

scholars who have discovered that

questions whether we should define a genre

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

by the mean (an inactive teenage girl) or the

overuse of the concept of ‘community’. We

ideal (an active, highly social core) or

could wonder how much it actually means if

whether we could encompass all aspects of

it is used in different contexts and for

the blogosphere when studying this

various purposes. The concept clearly needs

phenomenon as a whole seem relevant to

revision and therefore alternative concepts

ask since for every generalisation you make

are proposed in this paper. To elaborate on

there are thousands of weblogs to

the ways in which certain aspects of the web

undermine your theory.

can be mapped, Pouw (2009) proposes

The sheer complexity of the

Social Network Analysis in order to study

blogosphere makes it not only hard to

global power networks and Hansen (2009)

perceive the blogosphere as a whole, but

focuses on a new way in which order can be

also invites us to critically look upon the

mapped by using emergence theory.

References Baoill, A. (2004) ‘Weblogs and the public sphere’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Barabasi, A. (2002) Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing: 143-197. Barabasi, A. & Albert, R. (1991) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286: 509 – 512. Baym, N. (1995) ‘The Emergence of Community in Computer Mediated Communication’ in Jones, S. G. (ed.) Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 138-163. Benedikt, M. (1991) ‘Cyberspace: Some Proposals’, in Benedikt, M. (ed.) Cyberspace: First Steps, Cambridge, MA: MIT, pp. 119–224. Blanchard, A. (2004) ‘Blogs as virtual communities: Identifying a sense of community in the Julie/Julia Project’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (Eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Delwiche, A. (2004) ‘Agenda setting, opinion leadership, and the world of weblogs’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 3. Efimova, L., and Hendrick, S. (2005). In search for a virtual settlement: An exploration of weblog communitiy boundaries. Paper presented at 2nd International conference on Communities and Technolpogies, Milano, Italy. Eveland jr., W. P. & Dylko, I. (2007) ‘Reading political blogs during the 2004 election campaign: Correlates and Political consequences’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 105 – 126.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Fernbach, J. (2007) Beyond the diluted community concept: a symbolic interactionist perspective on online social relations. New Media Society 9: 49 – 69. Fernback, J. & Thompson, B. (2002) ‘Virtual communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?’ Retrieved April 10 th 2009, from www.rheingold.com/texts/techpolitix/VCcivil.html Flavian, C. & Guinaliu, M. (2005) The influence of virtual communities on distribution strategies in the internet. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 33 (6): 405 – 425. Gurak, L. (2004) ‘Introduction: Weblogs, rhetoric, community and culture’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (Eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Hansen, S. C. (2009) Mapping Quality: Grasping the Emergent World Wide Web. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 42 -51. Harris, J. (1989) The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication 40 (1): 11 – 22. Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Kouper, I. & Wright, E. (2007) ‘Longitudinal content analysis of blogs 2003 – 2004’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 105 – 126. Hoppmann, T. K. (2004) ‘From virtual communities to network sociality: Revisiting different concepts of social relations in the network society’ Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference: Web Based Communities 2004, 24 – 26 March 2004. Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 427 – 429. Koh, J. & Kim, D. (2004) Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business perspective. Expert Systems with Applications (26): 155 – 166. Kozinets, R. V. (2002) The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research (39): 61 – 72. Lampa, G. (2004) ‘Imagining the blogosphere: An introduction to the imagined community of instant publishing’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (Eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Lasica (2002) Blogging as a form of journalism. USC Annenberg Online Journalism Review. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://www.jdlasica.com/webjournalism.html Micu, V. (2009) Mapping the Web 2.0 Metaphor: Exploring the Power of Metaphors in Mapping the Internet on a Conceptual and Theoretical Level. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 5 – 16. Miller, C. R. & Shepherd, D. (2004) ‘Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (Eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Mortensen, T. E. (2004) ‘Personal publication and public attention’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (Eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Packwood, N. (2004) Geography of the blogosphere: Representing the culture, ecology and community of weblogs’ in Gurak, L. J., Antonijevic, S., Johnson, L., Ratliff, C. & Reyman, J. (Eds.) Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community, and culture of weblogs. Retrieved April 10th 2009, from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/ Papacharissi, Z. (2002) The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media Society (4): 9 – 27. Park, H. W. (2003) Hyperlink network analysis: A new method for the study of social structure on the web. Connections 25(1): 49-61. Pouw, I. (2009) Mapping the Global Social Power Networks. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 32 – 41. Perseus Development company (2003) The Blogging iceberg. Business Wire. Retrieved April 10th from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2003_Oct_6/ai_108559565/ Rutigliano, L. (2007) ‘Emergent communication networks as civic journalism’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 225 – 238. Shirky, C. (2003) Power laws, weblogs and inequality. Extreme Democracy: 46 – 52. Technorati (2008) ‘State of the Blogosphere 2008 report’. Retrieved April 10th 2009 from http://technorati.com/blogging/state-of-the-blogosphere// Thelwall, M. (2006) Interpreting social science link analysis research: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57: 60-68. Thompson, G. (2003) ‘Weblogs, warblogs, the public sphere and bubbles’. Retrieved April 10 th 2009 from www.svsu.edu/~glt/Transformations_piecerev.pdf Tremayne, M. (2007) ‘Introduction: Examining the Blog-Media Relationship’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. ix – xix Wellman, B. (2001) ‘Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism’ in Ishida, T. (ed.) Digital Cities 2, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001, 3-15. Wittel, A. (2001) Toward a network sociality. Theory, Culture & Society 18 (6): 51 – 76.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Mapping the Global Social Power Networks Irene Pouw Utrecht University (0487759) Department of New Media Studies I.Pouw@students.uu.nl

Abstract This article analyzes the concept of social global power networks. To be able to analyze this concept I state that social network analysis could offer a useful tool to map these structures and, the different power relations they address, as social network analysis can help indicate the dominant factors within a network. A shift has occurred in the way that people are related to each other. Globalization is a factor that plays a part in this, as well as the economic developments that are partly locally but nowadays are distributed world wide. It seems that there is a select group of people who take charge in these global networks and it seems that they are the ones that make all the decisions for the rest of the world. They are the ones that take matter in to their own hands and make that the rest of the globe subordinates to them. These factors enable the dominant standards within a network. On the other hand the theory of preferential attachment, as already addressed in this issue, also plays a role in this, because within a network the nodes (in this case people) with the most connections are most likely the ones that are dominant in a network. The global shift in the situation of the global social networks and in relation with new communication tools makes it an interesting case to analyze if social network analysis Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

could be of use when mapping these power structures within a global network.

Introduction As we have seen in the previous articles, the notion of networks has changed. These changes also changes the way how to map these new networks, as there are diverse ways to map-out networks. As described in this issue, to understand the concept Web 2.0 we use metaphors to illustrate this phenomenon. And within the blogosphere we describe the construction of a blog 'community' with the way blogs are making use of interlinking relations. Networks are

works on global and local scale. A central concept in this article will be the way how power relations get constructed with the help of globalization. Power relations as addressed in this article could be considered to be a shared standard that entails to be the most dominant factor in a given global network. This will be addressed later on, but first the notion of globalization and how that interacts in a network will now be addressed.

omnipresent and this article will describe the way how globalization structures

1. Globalizing the World

relations over the world and how it constructs social power network relations.

1.1 The notion of Globalization

Since the notion of the world is changing with the eruption of globalization, it also changes the way we make use of new communication technologies. The borders of countries are fading and the local community structures might get overruled with the appearance of global power

“‘Globalization’ is commonly used as a shorthand way of describing the spread and connectedness of production, communication and technologies across the world. That spread has involved the interlacing of economic and cultural activity”

structures. To be able to map these power

(Smith 2002: 1)

structures there should be a method used to describe them. Since that is the case the

According to Dr. Linden in Geographical

question to be asked is; is social network

magazine (2003) the term globalization

analysis a usable method to address these

refers to the integration of the economy at a

diverse power structures on a global level?

global level which involves two main

Social network analysis as will be described

features. First he states that most trade

further more, is a method of analyzing a

takes place among multinational

network and its players in the field at work.

corporations. And secondly, that where the

It can describe the different relations one

world economy used to be dominated by

and another have in a given network, this

physical commodities and goods, it now is

will be further addressed in this article as

dominated by the major activity taking

well the notion of globalization and how it

place in the global economy with the flow of

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

money in the form of derivatives, foreign

(Grewal 2008: 3). The thing we nowadays

investments and the like (Geographical

see is that within globalization there is an

magazine 2003: 44). According to Manuel

international in-group that welcomes the

Castells (1993), globalization is a process

entire globe on their settled terms (Grewal

where the interpretation of economic

2008: 3). According to Stiglitz globalization

activities and national economies at the

is a matter of choice, unlike the gunboat

global level are being made. While not

diplomacies in earlier eras (Stiglitz 2003:

ignoring national boundaries, this process

508). Stiglitz notes that globalization

of globalization, simply includes national

distinct several elements, namely the

characteristics as important features within

elements of; trade, foreign investment,

a unified, global system (Castells 1993:

short-term capital flows, knowledge, and

156). David Grewal (2008) states that

movements of labor. In this the notion of

globalization involves a game of social

globalization of knowledge not only entails

coordination, these newly global activities

technical knowledge but also ideas that

can best be facilitate through standards

transform society. He states that countries

(Grewal 2008: 2). Grewal argues that

could benefit from removing their own

globalization is an uneven process by which

barriers (Stiglitz 2003: 510). The foreign

conventions are determined of the way in

direct investment is, according to Stiglitz,

which we construct settled terms off access

widely praised for, as it not only brings

to each other what makes international

capital, but also access to foreign markets,

cooperation possible (Grewal 2008: 3).

technology, and human capital (Stiglitz

Antoney Giddensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; understanding of

2003: 512). Globalization enables human

globalization is, according to Grewal, that it

freedom and individual autonomy just to

is as a process through which distant

remake them the way they want to be. But

localities become linked in a way that

to accept this view it requires ignoring or

constitutes a lateral extension of social

dismissing the ways in which globalization

connections across time and space (Grewal

generates, and perhaps even depends upon,

2008: 19). Joseph Stiglitz (2003) states that

forms of coercion or systematic injustice

it is the countries choice to globalize, and to

(Grewal 2008: 57). Thus to understand

adopt the institutions and practices that

globalization as the extension and

seems to require, because it enhances their

deepening of the relations of sociability at a

welfare (Stiglitz 2003: 508).

global level, it also requires to consider the circumstances of contemporary social

1.2 Elements of globalization

theory (Grewal 2008: 52). Grewal states

As stated above, globalization has the

that the widespread feeling of that â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;the

prominent element that it best can be

world is getting smallerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; confirms the fact

understood as the rise to a dominance of

that technological and social advances have

shared forms of social coordination. But

made the distance between points and

once these shared global conventions are in

human beings on the globe feel far less

place, it can be difficult to modify them

significant than they did only a short time

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

ago (Grewal 2008: 18-19). According to

to lead lives of their own choosing. But at

Grewal, the new communication

the same time, there are critics who sate

technologies and media have helped to

accusations that globalization especially has

establish a world of global commerce,

been developed in name of a new ‘empire’.

culture, and consciousness (Grewal 2008:

The center of these seemingly

193). The driving element of contemporary

contradictionary claims lays in the fact that

globalization is the creation and diffusion of

it is difficult to untangle voluntary choice-

standards that underlie in new technologies

making from coercion (Grewal 2008: 5).

(Grewal 2008: 194). But the one thing that

According to Grewal the globalization that

should be taken in to account, as Stiglitz

we are now experiencing cannot be

states, is that the one controlling the global

described as a straightforwardly voluntary

agenda is the one that makes the

process. This process is rather a challenging

discussions, the fact that the globalization

response to the global expansion of a form

agenda has focused on the free movement of

of power that may not have been

capital, and virtually ignored the movement

characterized adequately but which is

of labor, reflects who is controlling that

increasingly dominant in our social

agenda (Stiglitz 2003: 511).

relations (Grewal 2008: 6). Globalization as stated is Janus-faced, because it generates

1.3 The Janus-face of Globalization “Globalization as a concept refers both to the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole (…) both concrete global interdependence and consciousness of global whole.”

new forms of freedom, but at the same time new problems entangle (Grewal 2008: 8). The social structure that individuals form through voluntary contracting with one another is the confidence that preglobalization commentators have in globalization (Grewal 2008: 51). “Critics of globalization are usually concerned about

(Grewal 2008: 19)

the impact that the predominance granted to relations of sociability will have on our

Grewal claims that while globalization on the one hand radically increases individual freedom it on the other hand binds us in the ‘Golden Straightjacket’ of international capital (Grewal 2008: 52). When the eclipse of distance has been mastered, globalization is noting more than a disruptive and uneven process by which we come to share common standards (Grewal 2008: 20). Globalization has on the one hand been celebrated as an advance of human freedom in which individuals become ever more able

capacity to exercise sovereignty, which is valued because of its link to democratic decision-making” (Grewal 2008: 51). According to Stiglitz, globalization often brings a clash between traditional cultures and the new cultures which it brings, with traditional cultures often faring the worst. When there is time for adaptation, the traditional culture might be able to evolve as a variant of the traditional culture which helps to reinforce local identity. But when globalization proceeds rapidly, nothing may

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

develop to fill the gap (Stiglitz 2003: 521).

possibility of social coordination’s via new

The global-pessimists argue that

global standards (Grewal 2008: 4). The

globalization destroys cultural and

standards that become most important

institutional diversity (Grewal 2008: 142),

becomes the focal point in which we find the

“while paradoxically, globalization induces

solutions to the problem of global

actually greater localization” (Summy 1996:

coordination’s (Grewal 2008: 5). He also

20).

argues that the notion of network power allows us to maintain our common-sense

2. Power networks at work

view of people as reasonable, choosing

“Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't” (Margaret Thatcher)

agents while simultaneously allowing that those doing the choosing may be subject to a form of external compulsion (Grewal 2008: 5). He states that the idea of network power draws on the ideas from a variety of

2.1 Notions of Network Power

scholarly literatures, of which anyone can

According to Grewal (2008), the notion of network power consist the joining of two ideas: first, that coordinating standards are more valuable when greater numbers of people use them, as they offer a form of

provide a starting point for a consideration of structure and agency together. It is the tread running trough all of these different accounts that is of concern with the analysis of social conventions (Grewal 2008: 58-59).

coordination that exhibits economies of scale. And second, that this dynamic, that he

The positive feedback dynamic

describes as a form of power, could lead to

central to the interdependent action

the progressive elimination of the

underlines that what drives the adoption of

alternatives over which otherwise free

one convention rather than another. This is

choice could effectively be exercised

a idea of network power that focuses less on

(Grewal 2008: 4). He states that a network

settled conventions rather than the ones

is an interconnected group of people who

emerging due to a combination of extrinsic

are linked to one another in a way which

and intrinsic reasons (Grewal 2008: 63).

makes them capable of beneficial

“Network power describes choices under

cooperation. This can take on various forms,

conditions that we can consider non-

including the exchange of goods and ideas

voluntary, albeit formally free” (Grewal

(Grewal 2008: 20). The standard defines the

2008: 116). According to Grewal network

particular way in which a group is

power works through the simultaneous

interconnected within a network. According

promise of belonging to a dominant

to his research, it is the shared norm or

network and the threat of social exclusion,

practice that enables network members to

which together give a network influence

gain access to another, when facilitating

over the actions of individuals. He states

their cooperation (Grewal 2008: 21). He

that the change of incentives comes from

states that network power emerges with the

the increasing loss of real choice under

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

conditions of growing network power. He

power driving convergence onto a dominant

argues that as the motivation to switch onto

standard. He argues that threats to minority

a dominant network become greater, the

cultures from ‘globalization’ usually comes

alternatives, even if freely available, become

from the emergence of global standards

even less attractive (Grewal 2008: 122).

with network power, against which the

Grewal notes that in extreme cases, network

strategy of negative rights will likewise

power will propel successful standards to

prove of little use (Grewal 2008: 169-170).

position of complete monopoly, this occurs

According to Grewal, global networks need

when a single private actor has been given

not be technologically based; he notes that

enormous power over the relation of

they may result from the common uses of

sociability where those relations are based

particular currency, language, regulatory

on a proprietary standard (Grewal 2008:

regime, or other conventions (Grewal 2008:

202). But network power, however he

21).

argues, is driven by the opposite impulse: the desire to gain access to others for the sake of cooperation with them (Grewal 2008: 169).

2.3 Standards and Network Power According to Grewal, a standard is central to the existence of the network (Grewal 2008: 21). He states that while a standard

2.2 Global Network power

provides a way to document quality

The concept of global network power

assessment, it does not specify any

originates from the idea that with this

particular quality control system for

observation of geographic compression,

adoption. He notes that what it offers is a

globalization occurs after the change in the

standard by which a company can make

experience of global geography (Grewal

sense of quality assessment procedures that

2008: 19). Grewal argues that what

were performed by the company from

compression of geography enables but does

which it receives supplies (Grewal 2008:

not provide is social coordination. He states

208). Grewal argues that one reason why

that coordination will be achieved in the

we do not arrive at shared standards

adoption of shared standards that allow

through public deliberation and collective

global social networks to emerge following

choice is because many opponents of

the technological changes that bring people

proprietary standards remain undecided

into contact with one another, but not

toward the public agency that such

generate everything else that people require

collective choice-making involves. He states

to become mutually intelligible and

that the power that private actors have over

beneficial partners in cooperation (Grewal

technical standards remains the subject of a

2008: 20). Grewal states that when cultural

debate which reveals the ‘technological

lost is based on network power, coercion

utopianism’ of the open-source movement

and consent are merged, and that the zone

(Grewal 2008: 215). According to Grewal

of autonomy that negative rights guarantee

after a standard gains its initial push from

will not be able to abolish the network

reason, force or change, it exercise network

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

power and moves along to conventionality,

multyplexity (Hawe 2004: 972). Grewal

points of references of new users (Grewal

argues that social network analysis has

2008: 38). Grewal notices that in a network

identified a few common characteristics that

power framework, it is easy to understand

distinguish one network from another,

where a technology embodies a successful

which may be useful in understanding the

standard. He states that economies of scale

actual structures of any given transnational

will drive the adoption of that standard by

network exhibiting network power. Grewal

increasing numbers of users, leading to the

states that the first, and most obvious one, is

establishment of a single, universal

the size of a network. This is described by

standard of coordination, as everything else

the number of nodes it possesses. The

will be equal (Grewal 2008: 202). He states

second characteristic he names is the type

that he does not wish to seem to suggest

of tie, whether it is reciprocal or one-way,

that all our standards only come into

and whether these ties are strong or weak.

general use through network power

The third, he mentions, is the density of the

dynamics: we can, and sometimes do, create

network, which is the proportion of ties

or adopt standards as an act of political will.

present out of all possible ties (Grewal

But as he notes, many of the important

2008: 182). According to Grewal, networks

standards that structure our relations of

vary from being uniformed densely

sociability (including those of globalization)

connected, what is sometimes called

are the products of network power

reticulated, to being segmented, or more

dynamics, thus reflecting the power of

cellularly organized, with groups of dense

sociability and not of sovereignty (Grewal

connection linked weakly to other groups.

2008: 49-50).

He states that networks also vary in the extent of their centralization, from highly

3. Social network analysis

centralized hub networks to decentralized clique networks with no central, privileged

3.1 The notion of Social Network

node connection also known as

Analysis

unconnected nodes (Grewal 2008: 184)

According to Grewal social network analysis

Grewal notes that different kinds of network

is a theory to map configurations of

emerge when different given structures of

‘networks’. These are understood as sets of

characteristics are involved (Grewal 2008:

actors, depicted as single points, or ‘nodes’,

182). According to Eilene McIntyre (1986)

which are connected by ‘ties’ (Grewal 2008:

descriptors of social networks makes it

182). The actors are, according to Penelope

possible to research much-needed

Hawe (2004), members that are distinct

systematic and replicable of social networks

individuals or collective units (Hawe 2004:

of specific populations in specific contexts

971). She states that relational ties link

(McIntyre 1986: 422).

actors within a network. These ties can be informal or formal. Actors can have multiple

3.2 Usability of Social Network Analysis

ties with other actors, a feature known as

According to Hawe social network analysis

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

is the study of structure (Hawe 2004: 971).

structure back into our social analysis as a

Grewal states that social network analysis

contribution to – but not a substitute for –

can help to identify the way in which agents

the broader traditions of social theory”

are holding a particular position in a

(Grewal 2008: 185-186)

network. He notes that perhaps especially a central one may be related to power over

McIntyre (1986) states that one unique

flows of information and other resources

contribution of practitioners to the field of

within the network. He states that social

social network analysis is our ability to

network analysis argues that the more

identify the responsiveness of social

central a node, the more power it exerts in a

networks to purposive efforts to alter their

network (Grewal 2008: 183). Social

properties in the interests of improving the

network analysis may thus, as Grewal

functions they perform (McIntyre 200: 424).

states, be useful for examining any number

According to Grewal social network analysis

of social phenomena in which we cab

can help us to identify the ways in which

specify the role that particular agents play

positions of centrality in a network

in the field of relations. According to Grewal

constitute elite status. This he states by

this way of analyzing network structure can

enabling control over decision-making

suggest concrete questions to pursue with

(Grewal 2008: 186). According to McIntyre

regard to any actual social network (Grewal

social network studies are within the

2008: 184). When analyzing these different

domain of analysis of social structure and

categories of networks it may help us think

focuses on patterns of interpersonal

about the importance of a few central

relations and social integration. She states

players linking parts of a network or about

that they are concerned with the

the danger of relying on those central nodes

composition, content and processes of the

in times of disruption or crisis (Grewal

‘lattice of relations’ in which each person, or

2008: 184).

set of persons is embedded (McIntyre 1986: 422). When mapping the relations among

“Social network analysis may be useful if we

organizations it offers us an even clearer

regard it as an attempt to think rigorously

example of social network analysis because,

about the structure of networks. As an

as Grewal states, it is more straightforward

exercise in mapping, social network analysis

to chart the formal relations among

may prove a helpful supplement to a broader

organizations with specific purposes,

inquiry, offering a way to reflect on certain

missions, and resources than the informal

kinds of social phenomena via a formal

relations that may exist among scattered

description of the structures of the field of

individuals (Grewal 2008: 186).

social relations at a particular point in time and with regard to a particular kind of

3.3 Dilemmas when using Social Network

interaction under scrutiny. It can generate

Analysis

specific insights about a given network

Grewal argues that the difficulty with

structure, which can help us bring an idea of Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

analytic mappings lies in their translation of

network, and map out secondary relations

details (Grewal 2008: 185). He states that

accordinglyâ&#x20AC;? (Grewal 2008: 186).

one serious problem with the effort to use social network analyses as a social theory is that the formal study of network relations can distort our ideas of agency, this because social network analysis focuses on ties between nodes. It is a theory of social life that derives from the kind of mappings it provides. It will fail to fully recognize human agency and will offer instead, through this abstract methodological scaffolding, a new structure-dominated account of social relations (Grewal 2008: 186). He states that the tools of social network analysis may be helpful in a concrete analysis of an instant of network power, which is suitably supplemented with philosophical and empirical analysis. He argues that this combination would resemble more closely the network theory now practiced in some branches of sociology, which focuses less on formal methodology than on network analysis in concrete social settings. However, its seems to Grewal that this literature still lacks a systematic philosophical framework and, especially, a concept of power. Such a concept, according to Grewal, cannot be derived from sources internal to social network analysis, but must be brought in from the outside, for example, from the idea of network power. Grewal argues that social network analysis cannot provide such an understanding by itself, because methods cannot generate an interpretation of problems they may be used to analyze (Grewal 2008: 186). â&#x20AC;&#x153;A more limited role for social network analysis would examine the

Conclusion Social network analysis is a method that has the potential to map-out the social relations of participants within a network. As Grewal (2008) states this method is suitable when describing the diverse and especially the most central and important nodes within a network, but it lacks when trying to describe and analyze the power construction within a network. This is difficult because the object of analysis cannot be the subject and the object at the same time, it has to come from the outside and cannot be inside the network as well. So a social network analysis is not very useful when describing the power relations within a network, but it is useful when describing and mapping a network, because it does show where the most connected nodes within a network should and can be found. This analysis can show the global structures of companies or important persons, but it cannot shed light on when and where they exhort power over other people. To be able to map that out, one would need to use a method that only focuses on the power laws and not so much on the social factor that is within social network analysis. Social network analysis thus shows where the power could be looked for, but does not show or map this power in a structure as expected when using this analysis.

control of a given node over ties in a Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

(WWW) and the way that order could In the next article Stijn Hansen (2009) will address the World Wide Web

be mapped when using the emergence theory.

References Castells, M. (1993) ´The Information Economy´, in Trend, D. Reading Digital Culture, Wiley-Blackwell, 2001, pg. 154-159 Grewal, D.S. (2008) Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization. Sheridan Books, Ann Arbor: Michigan, 2008 Hansen, S. C. (2009) Mapping Quality: Grasping the Emergent World Wide Web. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 42 -51 Hawe, P., Webster, C., & Shiel, A. (2004) ‘A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis’, J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58; pg. 971-975 Dr. Linden, in Geographical magazine, Volume: 75, Issue: 10, October 1, 2003, pg. 44-45 McIntyre, E. L.G. (1986) ‘Social Networks: potential for Practice’, National Association of Social Workers, Inc., November-December 1986, pg 421-426 Micu, V. (2009) Mapping the Web 2.0 Metaphor: Exploring the Power of Metaphors in Mapping the Internet on a Conceptual and Theoretical Level. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 5 – 16. Smith, M. K. & Smith, M.E. (2002) Globalization' the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/globalization.htm. Stalenhoef, L.R. (2009) Mapping a Community in the Blogosphere. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 17 – 31. Stiglitz, J. E. (2003) ‘Globalization and growth in emerging markets and the New Economy’, Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier Inc., 2003, pg. 505-524 Summy, R. (1996) ‘Politics of Globalisation’. Social alternatives, Volume: 15, Issue: 1, January 1, 1996, pg. 1821

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Mapping Quality: Grasping the Emergent World Wide Web Stijn C. Hansen Utrecht University (0319589) Department of New Media Studies S.C.Hansen@students.uu.nl

Abstract In order to better understand the World Wide Web and its topology, researchers have begun to explore ways to map it. Yet the sheer amount of content and seemingly chaotic structure have revealed this to be quite the challenge. In order to better understand this system, this paper turns to the concepts of the scalefree network, emergence theory and complexity theory. Ways in which the World Wide Web can be understood through these concepts reveal that the topology of the Internet (the rules of the systems) is comprehendible, but the increasingly emergent properties the World Wide Web displays make it impossible to be thoroughly mapped.

1. Introduction Mapping the World Wide Web is tricky

describing the complex blogosphere

business. As we have seen in previous

(Stalenhoef 2009: 29-30); social-network

sections in this journal, by both Micu,

analysis has proven inadequate to describe

Stalenhoef and Pouw, things online are

power structures on the WWW (Pouw

changing fast, making it seem that the deed

2009: 41) . Our attempts in understanding

of mapping is impossible: the term ‘Web 2.0’

and mapping the World Wide Web (WWW)

is a metaphor can work counter-productive

appear to be inadequate. There must be

in understanding the World Wide Web

something wrong with our current

(Micu, 2009: 14-15) the term ‘community’ is

analogies and research methods when we

hopelessly inadequate in

try to understand it. Why is the Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

phenomenon of the WWW so hard to grasp?

workings of the WWW, and what exactly is

What concepts do we need to understand

the difference with the Internet? In the

this incredibly pervasive entity?

previous sections of this journal, the two

To answer these questions, in this entry we turn to the concept of the scalefree network and the (relatively) new theories of emergence and complexity. Can they provide an explanation for the difficulties surrounding mapping the

terms have been used interchangeably (in fact, Stalenhoef’s (2009) article did not use the term ‘World Wide Web at all). If we want to be able to map the WWW, we first need to know what it actually is. We might find out that this is harder than it looks.

WWW? In a scale-free network, the number of links connecting the nodes is distributed unevenly: most nodes have only a few connections, whereas a smaller number of hubs have exponentially more. This power law adheres to structures as diverse as employees of a company, to the hyperlinks connecting pages on the web.

2. Importance of Mapping our World Wide Web We have mapped our geographical space in atlases and on Google Maps, we are mapping the (human) genome, and now it is time we start mapping our World Wide

Emergence theory studies complex

Web. According to Barabási (2002), whose

entities that seem to evolve from the bottom

concept of the scale-free network we will

up, where relatively simple agents together

describe later, mapping the WWW is

form something far more complex: the

important for two reasons. First of all, as

whole is more than the sum of its parts.

our society becomes more and more

Classic examples include the ant colony, the

dominated by the internet, understanding it

slime mould and urban development, but

and its influence better has tremendous

more recently the WWW seems to join its

value and can be obtained easier than we

ranks. Complexity theory is concerned with

think (Barabási 2002: ). However, more

identifying phenomena that are too complex

importantly, it enables us to extend the

to be grasped with a model, as the model

topology to networks with similar topology,

can only be as complex as the phenomenon

such as the neurons in a brain, or any

itself to do it justice. Still, certain criteria

network with the same topology, really

seem to distinguish complex systems from

(2002: 178). The laws governing the WWW

systems that are merely complicated, most

can be extended to systems as diverse as the

notably its ability to adapt to an ever

ecosystem and the brain. By better

changing environment.

understanding the Web, we gain further

Before we can try to use these theories for understanding the WWW, this paper will first investigate how the rules of the WWW. What protocols define the

insight into our web-like universe (ibidem.) For example, means to better defend the Internet from viruses and hackers share an uncanny resemblance to the ways the

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

human cell can be defended from

Internet. Browsers are needed to actually

threatening influences. Researchers in both

view the files requested and follow

fields can benefit greatly from each other’s

hyperlinks if desired. In this article, the

research (2002: 193).

terms ‘The Internet’ and the ‘World Wide Web’ will be used as described here.

3. Entangling the chaos of the web In this section the structure of the WWW

4. Rules of the system

will be examined. In order to give any

In Protocol: How Control Exists After

comments regarding its ability to be

Decentralization (2004) Alexander R.

mapped, we need to know what we are

Galloway argues that control is most

dealing with. Easy as the questions seems:

certainly not lacking on the WWW, despite

‘how does the WWW work?’, it turns out to

its image of chaos and rhizome. It has taken

be quite difficult. Most people would

the form of protocol (Galloway 2004: 8),

probably not know the answer. Surrounding

which may make it hard to recognize. Like

this ignorance is the confusion generated by

with language, protocol is a shared code

metaphors surrounding the WWW, as we

that allows two computers to interact

have also seen in Micu’s (2009) contribution

(Galloway 2004: 37). Imagine the multitude

to the journal.

of human languages translated to

In the article The Internet, the Web, and the Chaos (2005) Neville Holmes sees the ‘chaos’ of the WWW not so much in its structure, but in our confusing vocabulary (2005: 108). Phrases as ‘the Internet’ are easily conflated with words such as ‘the World Wide Web’ and ‘The Net.’ To clarity matters, Holmes proposes to get the idiom

computerized protocol: that would be true chaos. Internet’s shared language of protocols like DNS, TCP/IP and HTML is a prerequisite for its distribution (Galloway 2004: 11). Its ultimate goal is totality: ‘accept everything, no matter what source, sender, or destination’ (Galloway 2004: 42). This vision is very reminiscent of

straight. The Internet consists, simply put,

the view on the relationship between

of two layers: the physical layer (the

technology and the world according to the

hardware; mainframe computers, cables,

German philosopher Martin Heidegger. In

servers etcetera) and the logical layer (the

his outline of Heideggers philosophy of

packages in which data is sent) (108). ‘The

technology, Samuel Ijsseling describes this

Internet … is to the World Wide Web what

as a way of dealing with the world that in

an engine and transmission are to a car: The

our modern day is dominated by rationality

Internet makes the Web possible’ (Holmes

(1994: 26). Technology strives toward

2005: 108). The WWW consists of the text

uniformity by referring to itself and thus

files, images, URL’s, mail-messages and so

ever expands (Ijsseling 1994: 28-29). One

on, that can be viewed and made using the

the one hand, technology has enlarged

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

human power, but on the other hand our dependence on technology has made it smaller: technology happens ‘to’ us, it rules over us (Ijsseling 1994: 31-32). Notwithstanding implications this has for human agency, technology’s tendency to expand shows at least this happens within the same language.

5. Power Law As was outlined in Stalenhoef’s (2009) entry, the power law is a distribution where few nodes have a high number of links (forming hubs), and the majority of the nodes connect to a small number of nodes or hubs (25). She found this law to be present when looking at linking structures

The Domain Name System (DNS),

of the blogosphere (26). In The diameter of

the system that translates Internet

the world wide web (1999) Albert, Jeong and

addresses from names to numbers (so your

Barabási applied their concept of the scale-

browsers knows what page to display when

free network to the WWW’s hyperlink

you type in www.google.com), is the

structure, with pages as nodes and URL’s as

ultimate example of this (Galloway 2004:

the links between them. Due to its large size

47). DNS allows you to remember the

and constantly changing nature, they

address of a website through words instead

acknowledge that it is impossible to fully

of numbers, which are harder to remember

categorize it (1999: 130). Even the search

(Galloway 2004: 47). It is essential for this

engine with the largest coverage indexes

system to work the same for every

only 38% of the web, while it remains

computer connected to the Internet,

unclear what matters in searching the

otherwise www.google.com might take us

WWW (Albert et al. 1999: 130). To make a

all to a different page. In this sense, chaos is

first step, they have created a bot that

avoided.

documents all URL’s found on a page,

We have seen the rules governing the Internet appear to be relatively simple to understand and do not seem to account for the images of confusion and chaos that terms like ‘The Internet’ and ‘the World Wide Web’ often appear to generate. Heidegger’s view might learn us something here: technology, and in this case the web, has become so omnipresent that it has become difficult to distinguish from other entities, which is evident by the confusing metaphors that surround it, as Micu (2009) explained in his article for metaphors surrounding Web 2.0.

follows these and does the same on the next page. They found both incoming and outgoing links follow a power law (Albert et al. 1999: 130). Next, they measured the shortest route between two random pages, which turned out to be an average 19 ‘clicks’ away from each other, proving that while the WWW is huge, it is also highly interconnected. We have to keep in mind, however, that this study was conducted in 1999, and that the WWW has grown considerably since then as its content about doubles every six months (Johnson 2001: 218).

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Although conceptualizing the

theory, whose precursors include such

WWW as a scale-free network can gain us

influential thinkers as Friedrich Engels and

more insight in its hyperlink structure, it

Alan Turing (18). Emergence theory’s most

does no more than that. The WWW is more

important discovery is that in some

than just a collection of hyperlinks: they

systems, such as a slime mould or an ant

form just one characteristic of the WWW. It

colony, there is no central organism or hub

is important to realize that the power law is

controlling all the other components. There

present. Still, we cannot map the internet by

is no ‘organization’ that oversees the system

just mapping out its hyperlinks (which

as a whole and, top-down, instructs all the

accounts for just one layer as discerned by

other components what to do. Instead, these

Galloway) . Also, SFN does not teach us how

systems are organized from the bottom-up

important the nodes are: without them,

and consist of relatively simple organisms.

there would be no hubs. One theory

All components perform actions based on

supersedes the distinction between hubs

local knowledge and feedback, creating a

and nodes, delves deeper into the nature of

system that is self-regulated, open-ended

their connections and tries to see the

and adaptive to its environment. But what is

phenomenon that can be seen when

most important, is that out of all these small

zooming out: emergence theory.

components, higher-level patterns and sophistication emerges (Johnson 2001: 18). The whole is more than the sum of its parts.

6. Emergence and complexity

Johnson describes five key

The concept of the Scale-Free Network has

principles of emergence theory (2001: 78-

proven to be somewhat inadequate, albeit

79). First of all: more is different. There is a

useful, to comprehend the WWW. In this

minimal threshold of components the

section, the way how tools used by

system needs to display emergent qualities:

emergence and complexity theory can help

ten ants cannot constitute a colony. Second:

us grasp the WWW will be explored. First

ignorance is useful. Each components needs

and foremost, emergence and complexity

to be relatively stupid. More simple

theory are two sides of the same coin,

elements is better than less sophisticated

where emergence can be seen as the ‘effect’

elements. Third, encourage random

of complexity. Emergence brings

encounters. More constituents pave the

complexity’s mechanisms in action.

road for more unexpected encounters to

Therefore their key points and adherence to

which the system can adapt, and possibly

the WWW will both be examined in the

grow or learn. Fourth, look for patterns in

following section.

the signs. A large number of simple instructions teach more information about

In Emergence (2001), Steven Johnson describes the history and beliefs of the scientific approach called emergence

the state of the system as a whole. And last but not least: pay attention to your neighbors. Responding to local information

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

is essential for emergent systems to be successful. The more constituents learn from their direct environment (including information gained from other components), the more adaptive the system will be. Adaptation is made possible by the high number of components: the loss of a few random nodes will not cause the entire network to break down (Van Dijk 2006: 30) When considering the ant colony as

7. Emergency on the World Wide Web But does the concept of the emergent system apply to the WWW? On first glance it does. After it was released ‘into the world’, there definitely was no more central organization. Galloway underlines this notion when describing the Internet as a popular and actually existing distributed network: ‘[they] have no chain of command,

a scale-free network, we can see that

only autonomous agents who operated

emergence theory goes further by regarding

according to certain pre-agreed “scientific”

the whole of the system as emergent,

rules of the system’ (2004: 36). Albert, Jeong

instead of just in terms of reproducibility

and Barabási also acknowledge this and

(the power law of the queen spawning and

almost seem to fear this lack of central

almost unlimited number of offspring, and

control: ‘[d]espite its increasing role in

the other ants none). Even biologists

communication, the world wide web

studying ant colonies use emergent theory-

(WWW) remains the least controlled

terms when describing how ants forage,

medium: any individual or institution can

using pheromones: ‘foraging is a self-

create websites with unrestricted number

organized “bottom up” process where the

of documents and links’ (1999: 130). In

trails emerge as a result of local interactions

reality, the structure of the world wide web

between individual ants and their

has proven to strengthen both democratic

environment’ (Robinson et al 2008: 251).

and repressive forces. Impakt, a Dutch

Following from this, emergent systems do

online New Media festival, acknowledges

not work towards a certain pre-defined

this when introducing their project

goal: complete stability is never achieved.

Dissidents and Restrictions, featuring work of three artists that somehow criticizes

This way of thinking is revolutionary and at the same time hard to grasp because it denies the presence of a ‘control room’: an entity that guides the system as a whole: a boss. Even Marvin Minsky, one of emergence theory’s most

repression and censorship on the Internet, which suggest the structure of the world wide web allows a heterogeneous array of movements. Both democratic movements and

influential thinkers, has made the mistake

repressive regimes acknowledge the value of

when assessing new emergent software:

the Internet. Dissident democratic

centralized explanations are just that

movements like OTPOR (Serbia) and Pora

powerful (Johnson 2001: 168).

(Ukraine) owed their success in part to the Internet and other modern means of Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

communication enabling them to create a

WWW can be seen as being an emergent

climate of change and mobilize people.

intelligence, enabling global consciousness

Totalitarian regimes, in turn, attempt to gain

(2001: 113-114). While his answer is no, he

and increase control over their citizens and

does see many resemblances to other

the way they use the Internet. In doing so,

emergent structures. The main problem

these regimes often receive support from

identified by Johnson is the highly

large multinationals, which compromise the

disorganized space of the web. The absence

basic principle of the Internet - the free

of structure is only somewhat countered by

availability of information and the

search-engines as Google and Yahoo, where

uncensored exchange of ideas - in exchange

it is incapable being generated on its own

for a substantial market share.

(2001: 117). However, this is where

www.impakt.nl In an interview with Ethirajan

Johnson misses how invaluable search engines are. They are no antidote to a lack of structure, they are the web’s structure.

Anbaransan, Tim Berners-Lee, ‘inventor’ of

Indeed, Google’s Company Overview page

the WWW, underlines emergent properties

opens with the statement ‘Google's mission

on the WWW by saying its decentralization

is to organize the world's information and

and lack of central authority have allowed it

make it universally accessible and useful’

to grow so fast (2000: 46). In this sense, it

(http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate

can be seen as a ‘successful’ emergent

/, 6-4-2009). Websites create their pages so

system, although unlike an ant colony, it

search-engines can find them if they want to

cannot be compared to similar systems to

be found. Therefore they are not so much

measure its success. In Micu’s (2009)

mapmakers of the proverbial city as they

article, some descriptions of Web 2.0

are gateways: not showing you the whole

adhered to emergence. The Web 2.0

city, but giving you access to a part of it,

metaphor was described as being all about

which can be bigger according to the search

harnessing collective intelligence and

engine’s strength.

‘weapons of mass collaboration’, allowing companies to use emergent properties of the WWW, such as the co-creation of products (2009: 11). Furthermore, the WWW was identified as being in constant progress: there is no ‘end-goal’ waiting to be achieved (2009: 13).

The WWW can be seen as selforganizing but, according to Johnson, it is definitely not adaptive (Johnson 2001: 119). Most of all, this has got to do with the oneway hyperlink structure of the WWW: once you place a link to a webpage on your website, but there is no way for that page to

Even though many characteristics

know you are linking to them (Johnson

of emergence theory appear to be present

2001: 120). Macropatterns can be observed,

on the WWW, in some important respects is

even though they are not particularly useful

does not pass the bar. In his book, Johnson

for the average internet user. Besides

describes how he has been asked if the

hyperlink structure, user patterns also

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

prove to follow a powerlaw (Johnson 2001:

Parameters could be set to finding music

119). While these patterns exist, they do not

similar to your taste, or new music valued

adapt to anything in particular. Thus, there

highly by your Last.fm friends. ‘Adjust the

is no feedback-loop that allows the

feedback loops, and a new type of

structure as a whole to learn, to adapt. This

community appears on the screen’ (Johnson

is not an inherent trait of the WWW, but has

2001: 162). While this may seem

got to do with its architecture. If hyperlinks

contradictory, a set of rules has proven a

would change into two-way connections, it

precondition for emergence to happen.

could enable to web to learn (Johnson 2001: 121). According to Holmes, Vannevar Bush already described the concept of two-way

8. Complexity theory

links in hypertekst, long before the WWW as we now know it came into being (2005: 106). As a whole, the WWW cannot be seen as an emergent system. Perhaps on a

In Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems (1998) Paul Cilliers introduces complexity theory from a philosophical perspective. Our technologies

smaller scale?

are becoming so complex we do not fully Is change is on the way? In some

understand them, therefore they are

cases, the content of the web adapts to the

becoming more powerful than our scientific

patterns created by its users. On Last.fm for

theories (Cilliers 1998: 1). They are unable

example, the system keeps track of the

to capture in a model, without the model

combinations of music people listen to. It

being as complex as that which it tries to

does not associate music according to genre

model. One of these complex systems that

(which would be top-down), but detects

was becoming too complex to understand,

patterns in music by what its users listen to

due to its rapid growth and diverse nature,

(bottom-up). The recommendations in this

was the blogosphere as identified by

case will be more accurate when more

Stalenhoef (2009: 26-27, and reconsider her

people use it. The ‘About Last.fm’ page says :

quote of Packwood (2004)), and her

‘as you use Last.fm, you make it better for

question if we can still use the term

you and everyone else’

‘community’ to refer to it. This is also true

(http://www.last.fm/about, 6-4-2009) So if

for the WWW as a whole, simply because it

thousands of people that like Justin

grows so incredibly fast: maps will always

Timberlake and Bjørk, also like Rammstein,

fall behind. In many ways, Cilliers’

the system will recommend this band to you

description of complex behavior is very

when you listen to JT and the enigma from

similar to Johnson’s description of emergent

Iceland. Furthermore, you can also valuate

behavior: ‘[c]omplex behaviour emerges

these recommendations. Through these

from the interaction between many simple

feedback loops the system learns from its

processors that respond in a non-linear

users. The level of emergence can be

fashion to local information’ (1998: 18).

controlled by changing their protocols. Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

According to Cilliers (1998) it is important to model complex systems, because, from a traditional scientific perspective, it enables us to better predict and control their behavior (12). From a more philosophical perspective it is important to understand them better (Cilliers 1998: 13). Here it is important to make the distinction between modeling and mapping: the workings of the Internet can be modeled, without knowing what exactly is being send. The rules of the Internet enable it to be grasped in a model, by describing these rules. But this modeling can also be done for the WWW, for the rules of systems such as Last.fm. As Johnson noted, adjustments in the feedback loops can change the working of the system (2001: 162).

Conclusion Scale-free networks, emergence theory and complexity theory all lack in some respect in fully describing the WWW. The concept of the scale-free network is too limited in its reach; emergence theory cannot account for the WWW as a whole (only some parts); and complexity theory is more concerned with the modeling of the governing rules. This shows how complex the WWW really is, providing a huge challenge in an attempt to map it. Or goal of better understanding the world wide web in order to map it seems only further away from us. Not only our definitions of Web 2.0, the blogosphere and globalization need revision, but our understanding of the WWW as a whole. Still, the underlying rules may not

This brings us back to our initial question of mapping the WWW. It seems that the difficulties we are faced with may not be too different from the problems Stalenhoef encountered when trying to map virtual communities: ‘[t]he web is far from being a homogeneous sea of nodes and links and hosts many villages and cities that appear as overlapping communities’ (2009: 27). When an increasing number of these ‘villages and cities’ are beginning to display emergent properties, mapping them will only become more difficult. Distinctions between authors and contributors will only

be that difficult to understand. How they are then used, is. Acknowledging that the World Wide Web a complex system, we can accept the limits we undoubtedly will encounter when trying to map it. Its increasingly emergent nature does not make things easier, as the origins of content that floats to the surface is decided by the group as a whole. It’s not that ‘everything is connected’, but everything is connected according to similar rules (protocols) that operate on different scales, be it the Internet, the World Wide Web or different systems altogether. The content and growth of the

become more blurry as all users contribute

WWW is so big that it can not be overseen.

something to the system as a whole through

It has become too complex for us to fully

feedback, deciding together what content

understand. Since it does answer to the

will rise to the top (eg. what music is

protocols of the Internet, it can be seen as

currently most popular in Last.fm).

complex, because ants are also governed by laws, namely their instincts. Without laws,

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

complexity would only be replaced by

reduced to a set of rules that describes the

patternless chaos. Therefore, it is important

system adequately’ (Cilliers 1998: 15).

to better understand these rules: ‘[t]he

Modeling the WWW is within our reach.

behaviour of the complex system has to be

Mapping it, is not.

References Albert, R. et al. (1999). Diameter of the World Wide Web. Nature 401(6749), 130-131. Anbarasan, E. (2000). Tim Berners-Lee: The Web’s Brainchild. Unesco Courier 53(9), 46-50. Cilliers, P. (1998). Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge. Dijk, J. van. (2006). The network society. London: SAGE Publications. Galloway, A. (2004). Protocol: How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge: MIT Press. Holmes, N. (2005). The Internet, the Web, and the Chaos. Computer 38(9), 106-108. IJsseling, S. (1994) Het wezen van de techniek bij Martin Heidegger. In: Weiler, Raoul & Holemans, Dirk (Eds.), Gegrepen door Techniek. Kapellen: Uitgeverij Pelckmans. Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software. London: Penguin Books. Micu, V. (2009) Mapping the Web 2.0 Metaphor: Exploring the Power of Metaphors in Mapping the Internet on a Conceptual and Theoretical Level. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 5 – 16. Pouw, I. (2009) Mapping the Global Social Power Networks. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 32 – 41. Robinson, E.J.H. et al. (2008) An agent-based model to investigate the roles of attractive and terepellent pheromones in ant decision making during foraging. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 25(2), 250-258. Stalenhoef, L.R. (2009) Mapping a Community in the Blogosphere. Journal of Network Theory 1 (1): 17 – 31.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Interview: MINDZ.com: Making an Enterprise 2.0 Vlad Micu Utrecht University (3076229) Department of New Media Studies V.Micu@students.uu.nl

Since it is impossible to ignore the increasing commercialization of web services and applications that have been popularized through the dawn of Web 2.0 thinking, we decided to pay a visit to Mindz (www.mindz.com), an upcoming networking service that “conceives meetings, virtually and physically, and with that in mind, facilitates collaboration and sharing of knowledge and experience between it's users” (MINDZ.com, 2009). The platform just came out of their beta phase and have started to actively promote their “online socio-business network”, intended for companies and free agents. It is remarkable how Mindz employs a specific interpretation of the Web 2.0 metaphor , specifically aimed at ‘sharing stories’ and ‘building trust’. As we were able to see in the paper Vlad Micu also submitted in this journal, the mixed interpretation and use of the Web 2.0 by various corporations and services are a major challenge for many scholars performing research in fields such as social network sites. Vlad Micu had the opportunity to talk with founders Marriële Sijgers and Ronald van den Hoff about the MINDZ service, the use of metaphors and their Enterprise 2.0 vision. Mariëlle – “We try to think a lot of steps ahead, what people who are active in MINDZ in the future.” Ronald – “With our conference center Seats2Meet at heart, we’re facilitating dialogues between people, which is the basis of MINDZ. My personal role is to translate the vision into our corporate strategies” 1.

User DNA service

One of the services offered to MINDZ users, is their personal ‘Digital MINDZ DNA’: “This DNA [tagging system] is dynamic; it grows and develops along with the activities the user participates in and thus creates a bridge to get in touch with peer(s)groups. A MINDZ|Plaza is an online environment where peers gather around a central theme. Within a Plaza knowledge, ideas Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

and experiences are shared by means of blogs, wiki’s, forums, news aggregators, Q&A’s, E-mailings, event software and more. Using those tools dynamic environments are formed where knowledge can not only be exchanged, but also reach a higher level” (MINDZ.com, 2009)

It looks like its based on mapping user activity and creating dynamic feedback for the user, to tell them what fits them best. Certain group activities or events. Could you elaborate on the architecture and techniques behind this service that you use? Ronald - We combine two types of tagging. One is the tagging which people do by themselves. Tagging then also automatically takes place related to the user’s behavior through independent software that artificially creates tags connected to the user. The purpose is that in the future we can start working on project teams. For example, one day you could be facing a German producer of glass bottles and later you discuss with French and Chinese people about the airline industry. So you operate within a different context and the idea is that the context of the network migrates with you between your various activities. That’s the philosophy behind [the user DNA tag system].

What are the most important parts of that user DNA mapping process and the MINDZ service? Ronald - It fully depends on the behavior of the user, the tagging involved, what the user publishes or works on and who he talks to. Whether the user participates in Q& A sessions or the language they communicate in. All these are elements which are taken into consideration and one of course weighs a bit heavier then the other.

Now from my understanding, the most important part is not the services available, but the user’s personal goals and the user’s choices made within the MINDZ network? Mariëlle - That’s Correct. Ronald - It’s to create a unique experience for each individual visitor. It’s the innovation based on Prahalad’s book, New Age of Innovation (2008). You’re dealing with the proposition of the importance of the individual customer and your resources are global.

The Use of Metaphors

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

We’ve dealt with metaphors on the Internet. The ‘information highway’, networks, the world wide web, social media. In what ways do you believe that a powerful metaphor like Web 2.0 has influenced the way you do business at MINDZ? Ronald - We facilitate the process of online and offline meetings. Nowadays, we facilitate this process using social media software. In that perspective, it doesn’t change much for us whether its Web 2.0 or a conventional meeting centre. The prime purpose for us is the same. We use that metaphor, since we are in the business of what you call the art of communication. We facilitate that process of communication to different people. Mariëlle - I think that for the market, it’s some times makes it less clear because the term is too generic. Everybody has got a different vision of what it is.

The term Web 2.0 was mentioned in your press release, in a sentence saying “we’re offering services to users and spreading their story in a Web 2.0 way. What do you exactly mean by this and how do you want the reader to understand this sentence? Ronald - It’s simply to share stories and various topics. Mariëlle - Which normally works in one direction. Ronald - And this way you can create a dialogue. Mariëlle - That’s why I’d rather call it a ‘dialogue’ instead of Web 2.0. That’s the only thing I believe 2.0 says. Ronald - We believe that stories are spread and told, created by this kind of social interaction.

What are the most important necessities to successfully implement these services and applications into a corporation? Mariëlle - Talented people is one of the necessities. With a lot of creativity and with the feeling that they’re free to be creative, to think outside the existing borders. I also believe that a cocreating network becomes quite a necessity as well. Ronald - You need a social context, and generally speaking, this hardly exists within contemporary corporations. It’s all under control by management, by rules and regulations. In order to invite more people to create value, you have to go out where the audience is. But that means you can’t control the process anymore. So it needs a different style of leadership. As Mariëlle was saying, you also need a different type of talented people, with a different way of thinking. You have to give up the way of thinking based on managerial control. And if that’s not Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

there, if people still try to control things, then it doesn’t work well. Then, they’re not transparent as a company and you’re not authentic. The people won’t trust you. They won’t interact with you socially.

So basically what you are trying to do is break the existing corporate metaphor of what the best way is to run a company? Ronald - That’s what Enterprise 2.0 is all about. Mariëlle - Not process oriented, but vision oriented.

Could you explain which metaphors and concepts represent your company in the best kind of way? Ronald - We serve as a ‘boundaryless organization’ on it’s way to become a 2.0 enterprise. That’s it in a nutshell. We are trying to find common ground, common words that everybody can understand.

Could you elaborate on this? Ronald – We use terms like Enterprise 2.0, Boundaryless organization, visionary company, free agents, cyberdigma versus paradigma. A paradigma is a playing field with borders and boundaries. A cyberdigma is a playing field which is fluid, three dimensional. Some time its there, sometimes it isn’t. It’s a fluctuating situation. The word was created by Dutch philosopher Arnold Cornelis in his book ‘Feelings logic’ (2000). The term is much better in Dutch, “de logica van het gevoel”, which is a contradiction by itself. Combined with the Long Tail theory, those are some sources of inspirations for us. Mariëlle – Other inspirations are the ‘Blue Ocean Strategy’ (2005) and the ‘New Age Of Innovation’ (2008).

What has been your personal experience with the Web 2.0 hype/trend/metaphor? Roland - It’s not a hype. People made it into a hype, but it’s the way our future is shaped. It’s as simple as that. And there’s no turning back.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Mariëlle - We saw immediately that it’s a perfect way to share you stories to a much broader audience. It’s a real opportunity to reach your stakeholders and to create trust. Which is very important, especially in this time. Roland - For a boundaryless organization.

Could you mention the related literature or research that you would consider highly influential for how you guys do business? Roland - Check the shelf over there (laughs). Mariëlle - We’ve got a corner on storytelling in our other location and we’ve got six books, The Long Tail (2006), The Blue Ocean Strategy (2005), The New Age of Innovation (2008), The Tipping Point (200) and Feelings Logic (2000) as we mentioned. Those would be the most important ones. Oh, and The Star Fish and The Spider (2006).

What did you take from those books, examples, sayings or thoughts? Ronald - We combined the vision of all those people. If you look at MINDZ, it’s a Blue Ocean Strategy working along the lines of Prahalad (2008) it has certain elements like a tagging structure that is strongly influenced by Don Tapscott’s Wikinomics (2006) and so forth. Mariëlle - N=1 (the importance of individual customer) and the Long Tail is quite similar, it’s just doing business with one individual at a time. Everything we do at MINDZ has to be suitable for that.

Enterprise 2.0, could you explain a bit more about what it is and considering your approach, what it will be? Mariëlle - It’s an enterprise which is in dialogue continuously with all of its stakeholders at the same time, building trust that way, becoming authentic, telling your own story and working together. Ronald - It has two sides. One is the transactional side that involves a sense of marketing and PR action aimed towards conversion in order to attract people to the company and make them buy something. It was the old way we advertised. Now, obviously, they might start shouting “nobody’s listening”. On the one hand you’d have the social part of the company where you interact and where you have the dialogue with all your stake holders like Mariëlle said, and on the other hand, you must be scalable enough to deliver the product to every individual client Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

once. And you have to combine those two things. Their importance is equal. That’s the full recognition of Web 2.0 thinking. You have to have that within your company, that structure, otherwise it doesn’t work. An old fashioned company will simply say “Give me a blog” or “Yeah, yeah, we use wikis too”. Mariëlle - They stick those things together, but in the end it’s nothing.

What are your thoughts on this commercial background of this entire Web 2.0 thinking? How do you consider the fact that you offer it to corporations? Mariëlle - We see an opportunity here to become an Enterprise 2.0, which is definitely necessary to survive. If you don’t have the trust from your stakeholders, its better to stop doing business. In the old times, shareholders’ value was enough, but the value of money and shares is not important at the moment. You have to use something else to build up that trust, so you have to start off a dialogue. The old fashioned way to communicate with the market, was based on reacting to specific situations. You never used customer info from your database. Now you can open up as a company and tell them your story and vision in this world and let them tell theirs. In the end, you can do business with each other and survive. Ronald – On MINDZ as a platform, not the current playing field of [the MINDZ beta], there will be a lot of spin offs where people can use our platform to become such an Enterprise 2.0

Books mentioned in the interview C.K. Prahalad (2008) The New Age of Innovation, McGraw-Hill Don Tapscott (2006) Wikinomics, Portfolio Hardcover Ori Brafman (2006) The Starfish and the Spider - The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, Portfolio Hardcover David Weinberger (2007) Everything is Miscellaneous, Times Books W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne (2005) Blue Ocean Strategy. Harvard Business School Press Ronald N. Ashkenas et al. (1998) The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of Organizational Structure. Jossey-Bass Malcolm Gladwell (2000) The Tipping Point. Little Brown

References MINDZ (2009) In The Press page. http://www.MINDZ.com/press [Accessed on March 30th 2009] Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Book Review: Blogging, Citizenship, and the Future of Media (Mark Tremayne) Lukie R. Stalenhoef Utrecht University (3027740) Department of New Media Studies L.R.Stalenhoef@students.uu.nl

The author Mark Tremayne introduces us with a collection of essays to further our understanding of the role of blogs in the contemporary media landscape. Given the fact that Americans are increasingly turning to blogs for news, information and entertainment, Tremayne argues how it is useful to investigate the consequences, effects and legal implications of the populations’ growing dependence on blogs. By mainly using quantitative studies, Tremayne has organised the book in three parts; (1) Blogging: research on blogging using content analysis; (2) Citizenship: examining blog use antecedents and consequences; (3) The future of media: examining the impact of blogging on journalism. Part one is particularly useful as it examines the setting of the blogosphere and the generalisations we can make about the nature of blogging. Although Tremayne has already pointed out in the preface that “it is difficult to generalise about the blogosphere because of it size, diversity of content and variation in format” (vii), the collective of studies in the first part give us an indication of what challenges we are facing when trying to identify trends in structure, content and authorship of blogs and shows how, nevertheless, “patterns are beginning to emerge” (vii). With the introduction of every new medium a pattern of research typically starts with a description of both the content and users and then moves towards understandings the effects of the medium (Eveland & Dylko 2007). So, in order to investigate the effects of blogging, we should not only focus on the content, but also its users. Therefore, part two of this book examines how and why blogs are used. Two questions of main interest in the studies are mentioned here: how are blog readers different from the rest of the population and what are the consequences of their use? The latter part of the collection deals with the impact of blogging on traditional journalism. Being a popular topic of research, you could wonder how much this chapter is able to Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

add up to the already ongoing debates. Fortunately, the topics that are dealt with shine a new light on the connection between blogging and traditional media. For instance, Bentley et al. (2007) and Rutigliano (2007) deepen our understanding of blogging as a form of ‘citizen journalism’. Furthermore, international legal jurisdiction issues facing bloggers is a subject of matter in the chapter, alongside the protection of ‘press’ in the blogosphere. Already in the first study of the first chapter, a Longitudinal Content Analysis of Blogs: 2003-2004, blogs as characterized as single-authored, personal diaries. This corresponds with the survey done by the Persues Development Company called The Blogging Iceberg (2003) . The survey shows that the ‘typical blog’ is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on the happening in her life. By defining what a typical blog is, the survey pointed out that blogs are often misrepresented. Blogs that are widely read and consistently linked to represent the conception of blogs in the public mind, but are not representative of blogs in general. This book does not seem to fall into that trap and accounts for different representations of what is blog is and gives us, indeed, an indication of what challenges we are facing when trying to identify trends in structure. Since the book also brings a significant amount of attention to blogs in relation to journalism, one of the main discussions of the book is about whether blogs, which are often like diaries, could be seen as an act of citizen journalism. The various studies offer some useful insight as they elaborate on the different ways that blogs can function, without making the mistake of treating blogs as one and the same. Furthermore, the book offers some explanations for blog variation. For instance, one of the articles concludes that many characteristics of blog content and blog authors “are interrelated and that this variation reflects variation in external events” (Eveland & Dylko 2007:16). This discussion also brings up questions about the public and private character of blogs simultaneously. Since blogs are able to, one the hand, make a private domain become public and on the other hand privatize the public space, the question whether the blogosphere fits the Habermasian ideal of the ‘public sphere’ is also one topic of the book. According to Tremayne, “the blogosphere is clearly a derivative of the public sphere” (vii) and some studies in his book acknowledge this. As Tremayne points out in the Preface: Blog Terminology, the research presented in the book assumes the reader has some familiarity with web culture and blogging. While there is some terminology provided in this preface, both Tremayne and other authors presented in this book do merely not account for a proper definition of a ‘public sphere’, or a ‘public space’. The terms are often used without mentioning what is meant by it. The only useful chapter about this subject matter is presented in Rutigliano’s study Emergent communication networks as civic journalism (2007). Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

When thinking about the public, one often envisions open exchanges of political thought and ideas. Yet it should be clarified that: “a new public space is not synonymous with a new public sphere. As public space, the internet provides yet another forum for political deliberation. As public sphere, the internet could facilitate discussion that promotes a democratic exchange of ideas and opinions. A virtual space enhances discussion a virtual sphere enhances democracy” (Papacharissi 2002: 11). Another issue on which there seems to be lack of elaboration on, is how the blogosphere could be seen as a network. Tremayne, when introducing the book, states that “the blogosphere is a classis social network with special qualities that make it ideal for research”. Although he mentions three qualities of the blogosphere’s network, this topic is sparsely discussed or taken up on elsewhere in the book. Of the fourteen studies mentioned in the book, there is only one study that mentions “it is pivotal to consider [blogs] in the context of network and complexity theory” (Rutigliano 2007: 225). It appears as if Rutigliano’s article is the most useful one of all fourteen. At the end of the book, Tremayne invites us to look at the future of both blogging and traditional media. In his opinion, print and broadcast media are losing their traditional audience and power. Bloggers are increasingly gaining in strength and number, and journalism has a new force to be reckoned with. On the prior success of media, Tremayne then suggests that in the future the causes of preferential attachment in the blogosphere should be investigated. This seems like a direction quite a few authors stress out as important. Overall, this book offers a representative view on blogging and is of particular relevance for people interested in the connections it has with traditional media. Citizen journalism is also a concept which is elaborated on quite frequently. Although this book is overall quite easy to read, people should have some familiarity with web culture and blogging. Prior knowledge about the subject matter is needed, otherwise it is rather difficult to read.

References Bentley, C., Hamman, B., Littau, J., Meyr, ., Watson, B. & Wlsh, B. (2007) in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 239 – 260. Eveland jr., W. P. & Dylko, I. (2007) ‘Reading political blogs during the 2004 election campaign: Correlates and Political consequences’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 105 – 126. Papacharissi, Z. (2002) The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media Society (4): 9 – 27. Perseus Development company (2003) The Blogging iceberg. Business Wire. Retrieved April 10th from Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/ is_2003_Oct_6/ai_108559565/ Rutigliano, L. (2007) ‘Emergent communication networks as civic journalism’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 225 – 238. Tremayne, M. (2007) ‘Preface: Blog terminology’ in Tremayne, M. (ed.) Bloggging, Citizenship and the Future of Media. New York, NY: Routledge,

pp. vii.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Book review: Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization (David Grewal) Irene Pouw Utrecht University (0487759) Department of New Media Studies I.Pouw@students.uu.nl

In this book Network Power. The social Dynamics of Globalisation David Grewal brings two major concepts together, namely; globalization and the notion of power. The notion of power stands on a so called crossroad, since diverse scholarly disciplines actually have different interpretations of this term. Grewal tries to bring these diverse notions together by explaining theme in relation to the context as addressed in this book which I will explain in a bit. Grewal starts his book by explaining the notion of globalisation. He states that globalisation is a an uneven process by which conventions are determined in a way in which we construct settled terms off access to each other that make international cooperation possible (Grewal 2008: 3). He states that the way how we are now witnessing globalization cannot be described as a straightforwardly voluntary process. He argues that â&#x20AC;&#x153;it is rather a challenging response to the global expansion of a form of power that may not have been characterized adequately but which is increasingly dominant in our social relationsâ&#x20AC;? (Grewal 2008: 6). Shortly after this he discusses his second central point of this book and that is the notion of network power. Grewal states that the notion of network power consist two joining ideas, namely; first that the coordination of standards are valuable when greater numbers of people use them. And secondly, that this form of power might lead to a progressive elimination of the alternatives over which otherwise free choice would effectively be exercised (Grewal 2008: 4). He introduces the concept of network power, where he states that that is the power that a successful standard possesses when it enables cooperation among members of a network. Grewal places the idea of network power in relation to the distinction between sociability and sovereignty. He makes his argument more clearly by examining the dominance of the English language and the dominance of gold both as a standard. Continually he explores the idea of network power as power more systematically. In which he situates the idea of network power within ongoing debates that examines the different conceptions of power. Grewal also focuses on two general classes of concern, where he makes an outline for the elements of a normative Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

assessment of network power. The first concern is about the extent to which different people are able to realize their interests, and the second concern is about the maintenance of cultural identity. In his book Grewal turns to the possible strategies for defusing network power where we might find it harmful. He examines the spread of global technologies, in which he includes technical standards and practices. Grewal also analysis the network power of the World Trade Organisation. Then in the following chapter he discusses the policies as attempt in the previous chapter and argues that neo-liberalism is not one standard but a host of related standards, the network properties of which are not generally configured to provide them with network power. In his final chapter he focuses on the subject of cultural globalization. In this book Grewal states that “globalization is best understood as the emergence and consolidation of transnational and international networks that link people – or groups of people, including entire countries – through the use of shared coordinating standards” (Grewal 2008: 292). As he describes earlier in his book “a standard defines the particular way in which a group is interconnected in a network. It is the shared norm or practice that enables network members to gain access to another, facilitating their cooperation” (Grewal 2008: 21). He states that to be able to understand globalization one has to recognize the power intrinsic to the relations of sociability (Grewal 2008: 292). He has located this power in the social structures through which people coordinate their actions (Grewal 2008: 292). Grewal argues that while the relations of sociability consist in the gathering of individual contracts. That that will generate a broader social setting or structure, which will happen through network power. And “those of sovereignty depend upon an initial ‘social contract’, through which individuals fashion themselves into a unity that then provides for collective, rather than merely aggregated decisions” (Grewal 2008: 47). He states that network power works through the simultaneous guarantee of belonging to a dominant network and the threat of social exclusion. Grewal notes that this gives a network influence over the actions of individuals. He argues that the change of motivation comes from the increasing loss of real choice under the conditions of growing network power: as the motivation to switch onto a dominant network becomes greater, the alternatives, even if freely available, become even less attractive (Grewal 2008: 122). The whole book evolves around the notion of the actor and his/her relation to a given network. This actor can be a person, a group of people or a non-human object. Grewal states that these actors have no actual free choice when choosing to interact within a network. He notes that these choices are predetermined by the network that is the most dominant. A way to examine the dominance within a network could be viewed with the help of social network analysis, which can help to identify the way in which actors are holding a particular position within a network. When looking at a central one, it may be the case that it is related to the power over flows of information and other resources within the network. As social network analysis argues that the more central a node is, the more power it exerts in a network (Grewal 2008: 183). Grewal states that within social network analysis the focus is on the overall network, including non-human Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

actors as the key descriptive variable. Here we can see a parallel with the actors from the ActorNetwork Theory, as John Law (1992) also states that it is not only human actors that can make a difference within a network, but that it also could be a non-human actor that holds a network together and takes control over it. The ideas addressed in the book are not really new ideas, but to put them together in one book is very innovative and makes these notions to be seen in a different way, which takes the discussion about network power and the social dynamics of globalization to a whole new perspective.

References David Singh Grewal (2008), Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization, Sheridan Books, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2008 John Law (1992), 'Notes on the theory of the actor network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeniety', Systems Practice 5 (4) 1992 http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/papers/law-notes-on-ant.pdf

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

Book review: Emergence (Steven Johnson) Stijn C. Hansen Utrecht University (0319589) Department of New Media Studies S.C.Hansen@students.uu.nl

In his second book, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software (2001), popular culture author and New York resident Steven Johnson delves deep into the theory of emergence. In short, this is the concept of a system that consists of many small agents, that have limited, local knowledge, lack central control, yet somehow still manage to form a larger entity that is able to successfully adapt to its environment. In his book, Johnson identifies many different systems that possess these qualities, such as an ant colony or a human city such as his hometown. His descriptions are clear and vivid, and many examples of emergent systems are very elaborate and convincing. Johnson begins his book by describing the origins of this approach, stemming from researchers that were studying complex systems but did not fully understand how they were organized (most notably the slime mould), and using existing theories from thinkers like Alan Turing and Jane Jacobs, emergence theory slowly, well, emerged. The second section describes the current knowledge of emergency. Emergent properties can be discerned in a wide array of systems, both natural (the ecosystem) and artificial (the World Wide Web). However, Johnson does not seem to really ‘appreciate’ the wondrous fact that natural and ‘cultural’ (to which meaning is ascribed) emergent systems are so strikingly similar in the way they are organized. They both follow the same basic rules of many simple agents making small contributions that together form a ‘higher intelligence’. Does this mean that the ‘traditional’ dichotomy between nature and culture may be smaller than often perceived? Maybe not, but pursuing this remarkable similarity might give us more insight on this persistent dualism. Johnson places a lot of emphasis on the bottom-up organization of emergent structures, as opposed to top-down centered organizations. According to Johnson, control is something that is either top-down or bottom-up. Indeed, in the ant colony there is no central organization and the average company is governed by a CEO in a strict hierarchy, but what about systems in which control arises from an interplay of the two? It can be argued that many systems are a hybrid of these two forms. Consider for example a political party, which is structured according to a strict Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

hierarchy, but whose members might entertain certain opinions that differ from their superiors. These opinions may spread through the party and slowly change its goals, without anyone in particular controlling this change. Johnson does touch lightly on the subject when discussing emergent properties in games, as the right level of control is required to make a game actually fun to play. A completely ‘emergent’ game is not a game since it is not entertaining. But in a time where control is often still centralized, considering hybrid forms of the two systems can provide insight in many contemporary systems. In a TED Talk held in February 2003, Steven Johnson elaborated on Emergence. He asked himself the following question: who builds a neighborhood? When forming neighborhoods, some executive decisions are made, but mostly decisions are made by everyone. And no-one at the same time. Everyone contributes their small share. He identifies something similar that is happening online right now. Links to pages on Google are largely decided by popularity. No-one in particular decides what the most popular links are. The distribution of links appear to follow a power law: there are a few highly popular pages in terms of links, some that are somewhat popular, and many, many sites that are hardly linked to (if at all). This particular law appears to be present in many emergent systems for a certain characteristic of the way the elements interact. However, Johnson’s attention for this concept is very limited. In fact, it is only mentioned on one page. This is unfortunate, as its main characteristics, growth and preferential attachment, can be useful tools in understanding emergence. They describe the tendency of new nodes (agents, such as new residents in a city) to form a connection with the more connected nodes. Like some neurons in the brain connect to exponentially more neurons than most, this trend can also be observed for social sites (contributions often follow a power law) and city planning (such as buying trends). The third and final section of the book takes what we can learn from emergence theory for the future of media experience and political movements, such as smart advertising based on user feedback and the slow disappearance of media’s broadcast model. Here Johnson might sometimes be called overly positive in his predictions. Indeed, many of his predictions have not (yet) come true. While one cannot really be criticized for making inaccurate predictions, he does seem to forget his earlier statement that centralized explanations and models still form the ruling paradigm. And this is not likely to change anytime soon. As mentioned earlier, hybrid forms will be the first step, at best. Even so, Johnson does an excellent job in attempting to change our minds and appreciate the benefits emergency holds in store for us.

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)

References Johnson, S. (2001). Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software. London: Penguin Books.

TED Talk Johnson: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_johnson_on_the_web_as_a_city.html

Website: www.stevenberlinjohnson.com

Mapping the Network Society Journal of Network Theory vol. 1 (1)