#essay, July 2, 2024
by Nathalie
During a Zoom conversation between Anya and me, we reflected on the process of creating "Matter of Imagination" and discussed our interpretations of imaginaries and their implementation in our research. In the first part of this introductory discussion, I mentioned that I use the concept of 'sociotechnical imaginaries' (STIs). However, as the discussion highlighted—and as one of the reasons Anya and I initiated this project—employing such a concept is not as straightforward as it seems.
My project aims to write a cultural history of the Dutch public web between 1994 and 2004. At the beginning of the PhD, I struggled to identify which aspects of the STI theory best suited my research objectives. The concept of STI was introduced by Jasanoff and Kim (2015) who defined it as “collectively held, institutionally stabilized, and publicly performed visions of desirable futures” (p. 4). Whilst I appreciate the concept’s understanding of imaginaries of technologies being performative and social, allowing one to look into its meaning, materiality, and morality, I struggled with the apparent emphasis on the future. The word ‘visions’ indicates something inherently future-oriented, something that does not exist yet but is expected nonetheless. With this initial understanding and other great scholarship focusing on preliminary web imaginaries of pioneers, I began exploring my decade of interest, however, I struggled to identify discourse describing futures, utopias, or even dystopias.
Gradually, a need for a more nuanced and critical understanding of temporality emerged, both in terms of periodization and in its discursive construction in language. This blog post will discuss these two perspectives and showcase the relevance of their distinction, referring to great literature from the field (also part of our reading list). As is the case with Matter of Imagination in general, the blogpost attempts an exploratory inventorisation; it does not claim to be exhaustive or determining. Feedback and/or suggestions are more than welcome.
~ ~ ~
The periodization, or temporal cycles, of media technology development
Looking back into past imaginaries “provides us with important insights: just as it is helpful to ask how we imagine future media today, it is important to ask how future media were imagined in the past” (Ernst & Schröder, 2021, p. 2). Often, this way of thinking is described as ‘past futures’ which is, besides a thought-provoking play with words, a useful framework to look into prior hopes, fears, visions, and fantasies that were/are of influence in technologies’ subsequent material dimensions, as well as socio-cultural aspects like practices or ideologies.
However, when solely writing a history of ‘past futures’, one would miss other important moments which are part of media change before its grand adoption in society. As Ernst & Schröder aptly state, ‘future media’ are not identical to ‘new media’ (2021, p. 9). However, since both terms are associated with critical technological innovation, or change essentially, the terms are often used interchangeably to describe media technologies in either fantastic or novel phases.
For a more pointed periodization, we can take a look at Natale and Balbi’s life cycle of media (2014, p. 204) which includes: media prophecies, new media, and old or obsolete media. Starting with media prophecies, or the future media phase, which points to the period before the actual/material appearance of the technology. Important to note is that media prophecies are strictly not predictions as they can only be understood as ‘prophetic’ afterwards. Thus, future media can exist before new media in the form of fictional discourse which in turn, can inspire media development. There are many examples in science fiction that have inspired recent media technologies. A well-known example is Neal Stevenson’s ‘metaverse’ in his 1992 novel Snowcrash, which is the virtual reality space central in the story and resembles a massively multiplayer game populated by avatars.
New media, according to Natale and Babli (2014), points to the period in which a medium does exist, however, it is a novel technology. They emphasize the importance of ‘newness’ as a category in historical research of media communication technologies because “fantasies and speculations about new media provide a pool of ideas, a reservoir of possible interpretations for experimentation and application. (…) The imaginary of a new medium is to be seen, in this regard, as one of the contexts in which competing ideas of how a medium may develop are conceived and discussed.” (2014, p. 209). Whilst arguably more grounded in reality as opposed to future media, the interpretation of a medium is still flexible eventually leading to dominant uses, ideologies, and common sense. The web is a great example of this since during its infancy, it enjoyed various imaginaries that foregrounded different usages and ideologies; from the Well’s counterculture community to an (inter)national infrastructure for information division framed as the electronic highway.
Finally, we have old or obsolete (dead) media. Imaginaries related to this often follow two frameworks: ideas concerning the potential disappearance of a medium or the nostalgic feeling they evoke. There are many examples of old media imaginaries, for example, meanings connected to vinyl which is now a popular collector's item evoking sentimental experiences, or the technology is understood as the better/more authentic way to listen to music.
I believe it is very beneficial for media history projects to recognize in which phase your media case of interest is, as it can strengthen your research design and overall approach. It can influence the sources you sample (science fiction or newspapers, for example) or the actors you focus on (futurologists, pioneers, daily users, collectors). Whilst this periodization seems straightforward, media development can be fluid or exist out of a range of continual developments. Using my project as an example again, the emergence of the World Wide Web happened gradually out of the internet. In the context of the digital revolution, lines are easily blurred between future- and new media as the relevant discourse can indicate both phases simultaneously. Furthermore, whilst the web did exist from a material standpoint in the Netherlands during the 90s, certain later applications like the visual browser Mosaic did not yet. Such applications were still imagined and this may best understood as future media. If we zoom out and take a bird-eye view into the development of media communication technologies, it is not hard to recognize each rendition or revolution was the result of continuous development based on the same principle. To repeat Winston, “[b]eyond the hype, the Internet was just another network” (2002, p. 336).
The notion of periodization, or temporal cycles, can be recognized in much scholarship on technological innovation or media communication specifically. For example, Patrice Flichy’s work The internet imaginaire (2007) theorizes a cyclical trajectory of communication technologies’ imaginaries that essentially presents a nonlinear process between utopia and ideology. The utopia stages indicate ideas about the future of technology, continuously moving from fantastic visions to ideas more grounded in material reality. As the cycle moves towards the development of an experimental prototype and the subsequent adoption of the technology on a societal scale, ideologies begin to form that actually alter reality as they produce common sense. In other words, we can compare Flichy’s understanding of the temporal cycle following the lines of utopia and ideology, to future- and new media respectively.
~ ~ ~
The construction of temporality in discourse
Whilst not exclusive, the identification and interpretation of media imaginaries is often done by studying discourses. I use a range of texts like newspapers, policy documents, TV shows, mail lists, etc. for my research. On this discursive level, temporality is actively constructed and states something about how time, in relation to a STI, is understood. In other words, the construction of time has important implications for how certain phenomena are understood or experienced. From this perspective, temporality becomes part of the imaginary one studies and can help explain ideologies concerning media and its discursive effects.
According to Horsbøl & Lassen (2011), the relationship between temporality, ideology, and rhetoric is scarily researched and not recognized broadly. Still, they argue “that temporality does important ideological work in that it adds meaning to our common-sense construal of events, past, present, and future.” Following this line of thought, Horsbøl & Lassen plead that ‘timing’ as a discursive unit is fruitful to be added to the method of critical discourse analysis as it can be used as a (political) tool and thus alter power dynamics or -relations. In the same article, they identify so-called timescales, or “ways in which participants represent time on shorter or longer timescales” (p. 127). Horsbøl & Lassen (2011, p. 128):
Lemke, drawing on dynamical theories of complex systems, situates the notion of timescale theoretically within a ‘sort of social ecology’ (Lemke, 2005, p. 112), where processes are seen as embedded not just spatially (such as cells and organ systems in relation to the human body), but also temporally. Thus, ‘[e]ach scale of organization in an ecosocial system is an integration of faster, more local processes (i.e. activities, practices, doings, happenings) into longer-timescale, more global or extended networks’ (Lemke, 2005, p. 275)”.
A great article that looks into the construction of time in STIs is by Kasper Schiølin titled Revolutionary dreams: Future essentialism and the sociotechnical imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution in Denmark (2020). Schiølin, in this study, identifies how time is used by political actors to create an imaginary beneficial to their political objectives and thus shows how temporality is fluid and malleable. Specifically, he identifies a future essentialist notion in the specific imaginary of Denmark's fourth industrial revolution. This framework refers to narratives or visions that depict a fixed, inevitable future. Future essentialist narratives can be beneficial if managed well but pose dangers if their dynamics are not understood. Essentially, future essentialism colonizes time by presenting the future as predetermined, leaving society with no real alternatives but to adapt or become obsolete (Schiølin, 2020, p. 545).
Actors’ imaginary of the future, or their relationship to the future, is thus a valuable addition to the analysis of socio-technical phenomena. Other theoretical frameworks that can help us identify specific temporal constructions come to mind, for example, techno-solutionist or even -phobic notions. Likewise, we can view Berlant’s notion of cruel optimism in this light:
“Cruel optimism names a relation of attachment to compromised conditions of possibility whose realization is discovered either to be impossible, sheer fantasy, or too possible, and toxic. (…) [W]hatever the content of the attachment is, the continuity of the form of it provides something of the continuity of the subject’s sense of what it means to keep on living on and to look forward to being in the world” (Berlant, 2020, p. 94). “To understand cruel optimism, therefore, one must embark on an analysis of rhetorical indirection as a way of thinking about the strange temporalities of projection into an enabling object that is also disabling” (p. 95).
Also in my research, I found the focus on temporality construction in discourse useful as it allowed me to better understand the relationship between how a socio-political future is imagined on the one hand and, on the other hand, how a technology of that time is understood. The image below shows an excerpt from the Dutch newspaper Trouw from 1995. The bold title reads “Revolution at the buffet” and the article clearly states that a digital revolution is inevitable and that most aspects of daily life will be digital. This temporal construction influenced the STI of the Dutch web of the time, which was predominantly understood as an information highway; an infrastructure that could facilitate such a future. For the Netherlands to be part of this imminent future, discourse expresses sentiments of pressure to develop the web as soon as possible, imagining the web as a fundament for society.
“A reassuring message for all those watching the traffic on the electronic highway speed by: you’ll have to embrace it, but it's not as scary as it seems, and it will all become clear to you eventually. The third revolution in the household (after the telephone and TV) can unfold harmoniously. However, the consequences are not easy to predict. Will life change when we can connect all communication technologies? An exploration into the new world” (translation).
~ ~ ~
The importance of temporality
To summarize, a nuanced understanding of temporality in relation to socio-technical imaginaries, for me, points to two perspectives: a) temporality in the sense of change in media development and the subsequent periodization of technological innovation phases; b) temporal construction of timescales on a discursive level which, in essence, produces an imaginary of time that can influence ideological notions. I believe that being aware of these two frameworks—perhaps most importantly being able to separate them –can provide useful tools and approaches especially for historical research into technological imaginaries. These are often projects in which concepts of past, present, and future become intertwined mixed with the complex relationship between the technological, social, and ideological realms. Knowing what temporality means for your material, and which perspective offers one most can strengthen a project’s design; it certainly did for me.
I would love to hear if others recognize the importance of temporality in their research, how others relate it to imaginaries, and whether you can see the value in the distinction between both perspectives. The references, also written below, are also part of our reading list. Do not hesitate to reach out and share more suggestions. You can reach me on n.fridzema[at]rug.nl
~ ~ ~
References
Berlant, L., (2020). Cruel optimism. In M. Gregg & G.J. Seigworth (Eds.). (2020). The affect theory reader. Duke University Press.
Ernst, C. & Schröter, J. (2021). Media futures: Theory and aesthetics. Springer Nature.
Flichy, P. (2007). The internet imaginaire. MIT press
Horsbøl, A., & Lassen, I. (2011). Timing GMO: discursive constructions of temporality in local discussions of a global issue. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(2), 127-141.
Jasanoff, S. & Kim, S. H. (2015). Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S. H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1-33). University of Chicago Press.
Natale, S. & Balbi, G. (2014). Media and the imaginary in history: The role of the fantastic in different stages of media change. Media History, 20(2), 203-218.
Schiølin, K. (2020). Revolutionary dreams: Future essentialism and the sociotechnical imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution in Denmark. Social Studies of Science, 50(4), 542-566.
Winston, B. (2002). Media, technology and society: A history: From the telegraph to the Internet. Routledge.