Technoculture, Publicity, and Digital Privacy in the Information Age

Introduction: Technoculture and Its Ideology

Jodi Dean makes the claim that publicity represents the ideology of technoculture. Analyzing this idea requires considering the meaning of publicity and the nature of technoculture, as well as how the two fit together. Technoculture arguably identifies the cultural system we live in today — a system marked by the widespread use of technology. More than this, we can say that the technology used has become pervasive and links business, entertainment, and social life in an increasingly seamless way, as people accept the potential of technology while often failing to see how their lives and interactions are being changed by it. Some of the concerns raised about this by critics sound much like whistling in the wind. The growth and dissemination of technology is now unstoppable, and the direction taken by the culture evolves automatically based on the technological choices made by consumers.

Technoculture embraces both old and new technology and is based on a view of the supremacy of technology as a force and a conduit for communication. Publicity as the ideology of technoculture shows that more and more communication involves a form of self-advertising for companies, organizations, movements, and individuals alike.

Technoculture and Publicity

Dean (2002) views technoculture as being trapped in what she calls "a weird matrix," noting that "at just that moment when everything seems fully public, the media pulses with invocations of the secret" (p. 1). Dean notes how the media uses secrets as demonstrations of vulnerability and emphasizes security as a way of gathering and protecting secrets. A second and seemingly opposing aspect of technoculture is a seeming openness that is also characterized as more democratic than other actions in the public forum and that involves the exposure of the intimate:

"That is to say, technoculture materializes aspirations long associated with the public sphere. Indeed, it sometimes seems a machinery produced by the very ideals inspiring democracy. Advances in computer-mediated interaction provide ever-greater numbers of people with access to information. No longer a privilege of the elite, information is available to anyone with a computer. Similarly, more people have opportunities to register their thoughts and opinions on political topics than ever before. Chat rooms, cybersalons, and e-zines are just some of the new electronic spaces in which people can participate as equals in processes of collective will formation" (Dean 2002, p. 2).

Some theorists see the new technology as reflecting the ideal of the public sphere in that it offers universal access, uncoerced communication, freedom of expression, participation outside of traditional political institutions, and contributes to the creation of public opinion by means of public discussion. The fuel in the system is publicity, which links together the ideals of openness, inclusivity, visibility, equality, accessibility, and rationality (Dean 2002, p. 2). The new technology, like much of the old, carries the culture to the masses, and as Dean (2000) writes, "Cultural politics is about altering the boundaries that order American democracy" (p. 78).

Sclove (1995) takes the view that technologies "promote unintended social consequences" (p. 10), and the recognition of this fact has produced a number of concerns. Many have worried that the widespread use of the Internet will harm human interaction and reduce the sense of community in society, though others argue that this is not the case. Esther Dyson also refers to the way Americans in particular revere frontiers, and for her, cyberspace is a new frontier — "a place where you can go and be yourself without worrying about the neighbors" (in Kennedy, Kennedy, & Aaron 1997, p. 640). She says that what attracts people to cyberspace is that it is so different from the community they are accustomed to in their usual lives, and one difference is that cyberspace involves a degree of freedom not possible elsewhere. It brings together many different communities under one heading:

"Formerly a playground for computer nerds and techies, cyberspace now embraces every conceivable constituency: schoolchildren, flirtatious singles, Hungarian-Americans, accountants — along with pederasts and porn fans. Can they all get along?" (in Kennedy, Kennedy, & Aaron 1997, p. 640).

In 1998, an early study by Robert Kraut, a professor of social psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, found that the Internet was dangerous to one's social and psychological well-being. Tranvik (2001) asks the key question about new technologies: "will they cause unimaginable levels of social isolation, or will they bring a new society with a friendlier face?" (para. 1). The fear has been that they will bring more isolation, while many users believe they interact more with others online than they do in life. Cyberspace most certainly does constitute a new community to which virtually anyone may belong, and how helpful or harmful this may be will become clearer in time.

However, seeing the Internet as a separate community does not mean that it is completely isolated from the physical surroundings of the user, nor does it mean a community that cannot be reached by political and social forces from the real world. At one time, it was thought that the Internet could not be controlled, but to a degree, it can. Countries like China and Saudi Arabia have found ways to block large portions of the Internet and criminalize access to those sites. The new technology is liberating and democratizing in that it gives everyone access to information as never before, but the process can be slowed to a great extent by a hostile government and even by attackers such as viruses and worms.