Skip to content

Mattelart, A. (2000). Networking the World: 1794-2000. University Of Minnesota Press.

September 10, 2010

Chapter 1: Networks of universalization

In this chapter, Mattelart’s offers us a rather well fleshed out social, political, economic, historical, and geographical framework within which to situate the concept of globalization which, according to Mattelart’s has crept up on us without us even realizing it. The chapter gave me significant insights into globalization and compelled me to think about it in ways that I’d not considered before.

Mattelart starts with a discussion about Enlightenment and liberalism – two 18th century projects that heralded what we today term as globalization. Through a nuanced discussion (that also seemed like a history lesson!) about signs, language, division of labor, global free trade, circulation through the semaphore and electric telegraph, railways, undersea cable, internationalization of time and financial markets, radio communication, and social reorganization, Mattelart takes us through an impressive journey.

However, this chapter makes me wonder…

  1. What exactly is Mattelart’s central thesis/argument? Based on this chapter, it seems that he’s equivocating. While he takes us through this impressive history lesson, he seems unable to make up his mind about how he feels toward globalization. On the one hand, he says that globalization is turning the world into a “global workshop” (pg. 6) and that it is a conduit for “ventures in expansionism” (pg. 15), and on the other, he praises globalization (networking and communication) by saying that it “necessarily promotes equality and democracy” (pg. 17). I am confused! Make up your mind, Mattelart! J

Chapter 2: The Culture Factory

A more engaging chapter than the first one, where Mattelart talks about the political and strategic (a tautology!) nature of information and how information was manipulated in the latter half of the 19th century for specific gains by France, Germany, and the US. With the internationalization of “news” came its minions: PR, marketing, and advertising which together crystallized for recipients, highly selective information that would help legitimize contemporary economic and political practices with the public, never mind what was really going on.

This was significant in the sense that I realized not much has changed since then, except for the fact that we can seek independent information to dig beneath the surface of issues. But that’s only a select few of us, and even then, who’s creating the “independent” information that we get? The discussion on Hollywood and the missionary press was interesting (who knew that was why Hollywood was formed!?), as was Mattelart’s (rather accurate) conceptualization of “the world as a giant insurance company”.

Chapter 3

Mattelart veers the discussion toward WWII and the association between propaganda and the internationalization of media such as radio, advertising, and cinema. As a student of communication, this chapter was the most enjoyable and thought-provoking for me to read. I found it rather ironic how post WWII it was thought (by whom?) that for democracy to function, society needed to be unobtrusively controlled! The New York Times “red peril” discourse was a famous example that reminded me of Manufacturing Consent, (Herman and Chomsky, 1988, Pantheon Books). Ironically, here’s the 1988 New York Times article about the book:  http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/06/books/whose-news.html?scp=1&sq=Manufacturing+consent&st=nyt

Indeed, categorizations and characterizations undertaken by the media are ambivalent, malleable, and contingent upon social, political, and economic considerations. Sometimes it’s the Communists, sometimes the Chinese, at other times the Mexicans, or the turban folk – the enemy is always at the gates (Immigration Act of 1917, anyone!?), ready to destroy the American way of life, as far as the media are concerned.

Overall thoughts:

I agree with Alli that Mattelart’s exposition comes across as excessively dark and depressing. Mattelart builds his thesis upon the idea that “freedom of speech”, while an honorable and admirable concept, acts as a conduit for freedom of business, economics, trade, and commerce, but is that necessarily a bad thing? Psssst…I think the man in the cartoon might be Mattelart! 😉

I understand that Mattelart is not a big supporter of globalization (he claims that letting multinational companies “network the world” is tantamount to letting these giant corporates regulate and monitor the global exchange of ideas), but aren’t ideas also being connected thanks to globalization? While I am not completely convinced by Mattelart’s argument against globalization, he does make some good points that are well substantiated – the “global workshop” for example, where children work 16 hours a day in India and China for eight cents on sweatshirts that are eventually sold for $50. For more, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/gap-next-marks-spencer-sweatshops.

But I also think that globalization (just like all other developments in recent decades) is a good and bad thing. Yes, it can fragment the world and reduce us to the 16 digits on our credit card, but does it not foster avenues for growth across the world? Yes, it “incorporates the masses”, but does it not allow for people to be connected regardless of time and location? Yes, networks have always been used for gaining unjust control of the world and they have been abused (just like every other tool known to humankind), but isn’t a networked world, a better world that’s hopefully headed toward a meritocracy? Does globalization not afford intergenerational educational and job mobility and dissolve national boundaries when it comes to the flow of information, and by extension, power? Does all of this not make for a world that is connected for the better?

Questions for Discussion:

When we meet on Monday (9/13), here’s a list of things we could discuss:

  1. Americanism vs. Americanization
  2. Globalization vs. Globalism
  3. Mattelart makes a spirited call for modern strategies for “collective resistance” that will combat the evil of globalization (my words!). However, he does not elaborate on this. What could these strategies be and if adopted, will these non-mainstream strategists and their strategies ever be able to take on the big bucks that giant corporations can shell out to maintain the status quo that serves their vested interests?
  4. If communication technology is constantly pushing physical, intellectual, and mental borders, as Mattelart argues in the preface, how do we reconcile this with his elaborate argument that globalization commodifies human beings? For that matter, how does this tie in with our discussion of “humachines”?
Advertisements
5 Comments leave one →
  1. September 11, 2010 8:40 pm

    Hey Prianka,
    I completely agree with your reservations about the author’s interpretations and your overall feelings… I feel like my first year of graduate school was something of complete horror and utmost overwhelming critique of ANYTHING… but now I’m at a place in my life where I want to see it more than JUST something negative. And I should say I do understand critical means more than just negative judgment, but the opening up and careful examination of what you find inside, and what you pay attention to.

    I want to see the space and pockets of resistance and agency… I became too depressed and felt absolutey helpless, and while it was important I went through this, it doesn’t define my life. I realize some theorists bring this as their strength and we gain a valuable and necessary perspective from this, but……. I’m not an optomist, but what I liuke to call, an optimistic pessimist. 🙂 lol. If that makes ANY sense. Uhm, so I want all sides of the argument, and I think a macro-argument can be very good at producing an “overall picture” of structures, but where is the intimacy, where is the attempt to subvert, where are the individual stories of coping with these structures and what does it means for people who are in marginal positions–besides just, uhhh… bad stuff? I was just craving this while I read the book. Not sure if this makes much sense, but I’m typing from instant reaction…. Other thoughts?

  2. September 11, 2010 8:42 pm

    P.S. I’m not sure how to get my blog up on this page. If anyone is reading this and could help that would be fabulous. 🙂

  3. kachristen permalink*
    September 12, 2010 9:24 am

    We should be weary of blaming anything on or accepting any argument that suggests that “globalization” does anything. Globalization is a set of practices and one can argue when or where it started, however, what we need to be attuned to are the practices that surround what people label at globalization. These practices include economic models, technological systems etc., so perhaps for monday we can all think of the practices that define globalization in terms of digital cultures and digital divides. Mattelart gives us some clues and places to begin to chart these sets of interconnected practices (and policies and institutions), let’s see where we can take it.

  4. allitravis permalink*
    September 15, 2010 8:48 pm

    Prianka-
    LOVED this. I think you and I had similar thoughts when reading these couple of chapters…when reviewing your post I kept catching myself having dejavu of thoughts I’d had myself when reading.

    Your wrap up evaluating the good, the bad, and the ugly of globalization was a good way to counterbalance the mostly one-sided opinion of Mattelart. Although I didn’t particularly enjoy his expression of it, Mattelart had every reason to voice his negative opinion on the outcomes of globalization. Without a doubt, there are many downsides that come along with it. However, as you emphasize, it would also be very easy to argue against him and stress its benefits and its positive affects on communication, education, and advancement. I’d like to see you go up against Mattelart in a debate, I bet you’d give him a run for his money 😉

    • priyanka30 permalink*
      September 16, 2010 12:02 am

      Awww, thanks Alli! 🙂
      Love the profile pic btw. and how’s the golf going? Good luck from ALL of us! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: