Castells' "Network Society" and its assessment

INTRODUCTION
The technology today and its exponential growth are transforming our society every second. We are living amidst two very different epochs. What makes this period unforeseen in history is the speed at which it is changing. Never before have we witnessed a gap between the cultures of two generations being as large as the current one. The internet has become “the fabric of our lives” and the character of our period stems from the interaction between multiple models, not of less developed societies aiming to emulate the most developed ones (castells(1942), 2001, p. 1). The number of Internet users on the planet grew from under 40 million in 1995 to about 1.5 billion in 2009 (castells, the rise of the network society, 2000, p. 24)

Manuel Castells, a professor of Sociology, and Director of the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC), in Barcelona has been studying closely these changes and his theories have opened a new arenas for debates- debates centered about the future of the societies we are a part of. His seminal work is on the theory of ‘network society’ in which he talks about a society not restricted by time and distance- about moving away from the Gutenberg galaxy towards an Internet galaxy. Some of his key publications include a trilogy- ‘The Rise of the Network Society’, ‘The Power of Identity’ and ‘End of Millennium’ (1996) and his latest book- ‘Communication Power’ (2009). In this essay, I shall describe how Castells defines the ‘network society’ and the advantages and disadvantages of the concept for understanding the current societies.

CASTELLS AND THE NETWORK SOCIETY

The foremost question is- what is a network? Castells had explained it as “a set of inter-connected nodes. A node is the point at which a curve intersects itself. Networks are very old forms of human practice, but they have taken on a new life in our time by becoming informational networks, powered by the internet”. (castells, the rise of the network society, 2000, p. 501). He states that the internet and wireless communication “is the technological basis for the organisational form of the Information Age: the network” (castells(1942), 2001, p. 1). We are living in a second world which is virtual- after the advent of internet. “Networks are becoming the preferred way of organising in virtually all domains of social life” (Stalder, 2006). The society is influenced by any changes in the technology and with the internet revolution it has taken an immaterial shape.
“The trends observed in the last decade seem to support the relevance of this analysis of the transformation of time, however abstract it appears to be. The process of globalization has accelerated the tempo of production, management, and distribution of goods and services throughout the planet, measuring productivity and competition by shrinking time to the lowest possible level”
(castells, the rise of the network society, 2000, p. 50)
There are networks at every level in the society- professional, institutional, personal and so on; there are ‘network states’, ‘networked individualism’ and even ‘network of networks’ on the internet. In traditional societies, there was a vertical social structure- hierarchies but the network society has a horizontal communication system. These lead us to the concept of network society which refers to a society in which time and distance is immaterial. According to Castells, “three independent processes came together, ushering in a new social structure predominantly based on networks: the needs of the economy for management flexibility and for the globalisation of capital, production, and trade; the demands of society in which the values of individual freedom and open communication became paramount; and the extraordinary advances in computing and telecommunications made possible by the micro-electronics revolution…..thus internet became the lever for the transition to a new form of society- the network society- and with it to a new economy” (castells(1942), 2001, p. 2). This theory was empirically conceptualised and took a holistic view of the social study, i.e., to understand one aspect of the society, on needs to understand the whole of it. The key dimensions of Castells’s concept of network society are- network, nodes, space of flows, power and counter power among others. By ‘space of flows’ Castells understood that these are:
“the material arrangements that allow for simultaneity of social practices without territorial contiguity. It is not a purely electronic space. It is not what Batty has called a cyber space, although cyberspace is a component of the space of flows. It is made up first of all of a technological infrastructure of information systems, telecommunications, and transportation lines. The space of flows is also made of networks of interactions and the goals of each network configurate a different space of flows”
(castells, Grassrooting the space of flows, 2005). The relationships of “power and social priorities, derived from a technology’s situation are thus, in a sense, designed into instruments” (Barney(1966), 2004, p. 54)
The network society is a virtual extension of one’s self in “all its dimensions, and with all its modalities” (castells(1942), 2001, p. 118). Although it is closely linked by the theory of ‘virtual communities’ but they are fairly distinguishable; the scope of this essay doesn’t allow me to explore and make comparisons between the two.
ADVANTAGES OF THE CONCEPT OF NETWORK SOCIETY FOR UNDERSTANDING CURRENT SOCIETIES

Castells’s conception of the networks has a wide scope and is indeed, very flexible. The concept of network society uses networks as the only connecting thread which is adaptable and can be applied to a large range of social structures and organisations. The networks in today’s society “are proliferating in all domains of the economy and society, outcompeting and outperforming vertically organized corporations and centralized bureaucracies” (castells(1942), 2001, p. 1). Before the arrival of internet, networks had to face hurdles in “coordinating functions, in focusing resources on specific goals, and in accomplishing a given task, beyond a certain size and complexity of the network but in today’s society, the description of ‘network society’ fits considerably because due to internet and technology, there is an unprecedented combination of flexibility and task performance, of coordinated decision-making and decentralised execution, of individualised expression and global, horizontal communication, which provide a superior organisational form for human action” (castells(1942), 2001, p. 2). The boundaries between mass media communication and other types of communication are blurring which is inducing the technological scientists to produce more and more user-friendly devices for better inter-personal and mass ‘self-communication’ (castells, communication power, 2009) i.e. a form of communication which has emerged with “the development of the so-called Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, or the cluster of technologies, devices, and applications that support the proliferation of social spaces on the Internet thanks to increased broadband capacity, open source software, and enhanced computer graphics and interface, including avatar interaction in three-dimensional virtual spaces” (castells, the power of identity, 2010, p. 25).
The element of space of flows in the concept of network societies as perceived by Castells is “becoming increasingly the space in which most important activities operate in our societies. There is interaction; there is connection” (castells, Grassrooting the space of flows, 2005). The information sharing system characterising the network societies can enhance our knowledge about everything we need to know and thus helps us to reach a conclusive rationale through which the problem solving becomes faster and easier for the human mind.
In his theory of informational/ network society, he makes another important point that “our societies continue to perform socially and politically by shifting the process of formation of the public mind from political institutions to the realm of communication, largely organized around the mass media” (castells, communication, power and counter-power in the network society, 2007). To a large extent, political legitimacy has been replaced by communication framing of the public mind in the network society, as one can see from the arguments he gives. Castells extols the role of NGOs to elaborate his concept of a network state in a network society. According to him these NGOs would be considered as ‘neo-governmental organizations’ rather than non-governmental organizations. These would, as he envisions, guide the network society on behalf of the humans.
In understanding the current society, it becomes relevant to study this theory on informational networks because of the rising role of ‘power-players’ using internet as “a tool of surveillance as in the U.S., using manual control of email messages when robots cannot do the job, as in the latest developments in China, treating Internet users as pirates and cheaters, as in much of the legislation of the European Union, buying social networking web sites to tame their communities, owning the network infrastructure to differentiate access rights, and endless other means of policing and framing the newest form of communication space” (castells, communication, power and counter-power in the network society, 2007)

DISADVANTAGES OF THE CONCEPT OF NETWORK SOCIETY FOR UNDERSTANDING CURRENT SOCIETIES

Felix Stalder points out correctly that “Castells tends to offer very broad and general definitions that shift much of the explanatory work to their empirical application” (Stalder, 2006, p. 170). Many critics of Castells’s work have pointed out to the fact that even if his model of network society is foolproof, what does one gain out of it? Ironically, he studies ‘network’ society in isolation. Perkmann (a critic of Castells) terms the theory as an “empty signifier” because of its vague nature and broadness. This critique is “understandable because Castells is not only extremely frugal with his definition of networks, but also does not use, or even refer to, any of the standard categories developed by network analysts over the last two decades” (Stalder, 2006). It might be because his thesis is based on empirical evidence and is relatively new; not much work has been done on it. There are a few other challenges of the network society as described by Castells himself, in his book The Internet Galaxy (castells(1942), 2001).
The first one is ‘freedom’ itself owing to expansion of media monopolies free communication and information flows become restricted and/or manipulated. The next challenge is that instead of the north south divide (determined by space of places) there are other kinds of isolated nodes unevenly dotting the world network maps; these are the people switched off from the network societies. Another major limitation is the storage and ‘knowledge generation and absorption capacity’ of human beings. By this, Castells means that “there is no more fundamental restructuring of education (castells(1942), 2001, pp. 275-279). The education system is transforming into a virtual network consisting of those distributing knowledge and those receiving it. An unforeseen challenge to the concept of network society arises in the form of developmental concern. In network societies, a substitute has still not been provided for physical forms of labour employment and institutions for social security.
“The mechanisms of social protection on which social peace, working partnerships, and personal security were based need to be redefined in the new socio-economic context”
(castells(1942), 2001, p. 278).
This new economy after the advent of network society is in need of market regulations and institutions for stabilizing monetary and fiscal crisis. Castells, along with the above drawbacks also recognizes environmental degradations as a concern beyond the scope of the concept of network society.
A persistent criticism of contemporary mode of communication in the network society is critiqued to have lost the personalised communication. The ‘reality’ element from the real world is diminishing i.e., “new technologies are also fostering the development of social spaces of virtual reality that combine sociability and experimentation with role-playing games” (castells, communication, power and counter-power in the network society, 2007, p. 28). Internet is leading to isolation of individuals from the real world; “faceless individuals practice random sociability” (castells(1942), 2001, p. 116).
Castells’s book (castells, communication power, 2009), states specific aspects of the network theory and the review of the book brings out a point- “….Castells’
s account
 is 
undercut 
by 
a 
rather 
old‐fashioned 
analysis 
of 
the 
media and 
a 
confusing 
framework 
of 
how 
audiences 
make
 sense
 of 
media 
messages. 
It 
is 
also
Limited 
by 
Castells’ 
focus 
on 
communication 
power 
as 
the 
‘shaping 
of 
the 
public 
mind’.
This
 weakens
 his 
analysis 
of 
the 
most
 important
 form
 of
 power 
in
 the 
network
 society:
The 
power 
to 
construct 
socio-technical 
networks” (Kavada, 2011)
One of the sharpest criticisms to the theory of network society has been- the non existence of the “actors and institutions able and willing to take on these challenges”. (castells(1942), 2001, p. 280). To explain this point further, real world still has geographical divides which leads to different consequences for different people in the network society- a claim which refutes the essence of the theory of network society.
CONCLUSION

There have been other theorists apart from Manuel Castells who have worked on the concept of network society like Darin David Barney, Felix Stalder. They are all contemporary theorists. The theory of network society is more relevant today as compared to any other era in history.
But in nineteenth century, a German sociologist named George Simmel conceptualised ‘a web of relations which was, in essence, analogous to today’s definition of network society. He talked about Dyad and Tryad (A dyad is a two person group; a triad is a three person group), asserting that as the number of people in a web of relation increases the ‘individuality’ of each person involved decreases but at the same time, due to increase in the number of entities involved, it became more and more difficult to exert control over one individual, hence the ‘freedom’ was retained. This debate of ‘freedom’ vs ‘individuality’ is relevant even today, with Castells’s network society at play. Simmel, in his work finally suggested that in an effort to become a member of a larger group (network), one must become a part of a ‘family’ (smaller network) first to retain both their individuality and freedom.
Also, in understanding the current informational societies we must not ignore the one-third population of the world which operates outside the domain of the network society and according to the internet-world, still lives in the ‘dark-ages’. Such a society needs to be studied in order to conform with the totalistic view of the theory of network society as viewed by Castells. But the changes in our society due to the effect of internet are very visible to us in everyday lives and can be better understood by this theory; wit few minor drawbacks which will become clearer in the due course of time, this theory can be used a powerful tool for the future generations to understand this era of communication revolution.
I would thus conclude that Manuel Castells’s work helps us to understand how the “Internet came into being, and how it is affecting every area of human life--from work, politics, planning and development, media, and privacy, to our social interaction and life in the home. We are at ground zero of the new network society” (12ja)

(references overleaf)

REFERENCES
1. (n.d.). Retrieved january 9, 2012, from http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1t_tAAAAMAAJ&q=castells+internet+galaxy&dq=castells+internet+galaxy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YC0LT8fVJabL0QGxsv3RAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA
2. Barney(1966), D. D. (2004). The network society. cambridge: polity.
3. Bennett, W. (2003). New Media Power: The internet and Global Activism. In n. couldry, & j. curran, contesting media power: alternative media in a networked world. oxford: rowman & littlefield.
4. castells(1942), m. (2001). the internet galaxy: reflections on the internet, business and society. oxford: oxford university press.
5. castells, m. (2009). communication power. oxford: oxford university press.
6. castells, m. (2007). communication, power and counter-power in the network society. international journal of communication , 238-266.
7. castells, m. (2005). Grassrooting the space of flows. In M. Abbas, & j. n. erni, internationalizing cultural studies: an anthology (pp. 627-636). oxford: blackwell.
8. castells, m. (2010). the new public sphere: global civil society, communication networks, and global governance. In D. K. Thussu, International Communication: A reader (pp. 36-119). london: routledge.
9. castells, m. (2010). the power of identity. sussex: wiley-blackwell.
10. castells, m. (2000). the rise of the network society. sussex: blakwell publishing ltd.
11. castells, m., & ince, m. (2003). conversations with manuel castells. Wiley-Blackwell.
12. castells, m., cardoso, g., & nitze, p. h. (2006). the network society: from knowledge to policy. washington DC: centra for transatlantic relations, paul h. nitze school of advanced international studies, Johns Hopkins University.
13. Kavada, A. (2011). Book Review of Communication Power. Westminster Papers in communication and culture , 197-200.
14. Stalder, F. (2006). manuel castells: the theory of network society. cambridge: polity.