Call for Papers: Hubris in International Relations

Research Workshop, Queen’s University Belfast. 16th June 2025

Convenors: Alister Miskimmon, Queen’s University Belfast; Ben O’Loughlin, Royal Holloway, University of London; Adam B. Lerner, University of Massachusetts at Lowell

Hubris, in all its guises, is an under-researched phenomenon in International Relations. We define hubris primarily as an over-confidence in one’s own beliefs that leads to overlooking alternative perspectives. Though the term is often used as an epithet against leaders with whom one disagrees, we also acknowledge that hubris is a common quality among the political classes with a unique impact on international affairs. Though typically understood as an individual-level trait, hubris undeniably scales the level of international politics—as the re-election of Donald Trump to the US presidency makes clear. We propose to explore this idea more deeply to investigate how hubris can be better understood as a factor in explaining failure and instability in the international system.

Existing scholarship has analysed hubris only in limited ways. At the level of individual political psychology, studies have analysed how leaders display hubris, often to negative effect. According to Owen and Davidson, hubris is a syndrome acquired over time, and is a ‘…disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on a leader’ (Owen 2008; Owen and Davidson 2009). Owen and Davidson detail 14 symptoms of hubris syndrome impacting political leaders and their actions (Owen and Davidson 2009). While certainly a useful template for analysis of leaders like Trump and Putin, Owen and Davidson’s diagnosis raises questions about how hubris as an individual pathology scales to the level of the state and state action.        

Beyond individual-level analysis, studies have noted the prevalence of hubris in narratives in international affairs. Button, for example, has examined the resurgence of the rhetoric of hubris, drawing on Hellenic thought to analyse contemporary politics (Button 2012). He argues that such rhetoric is a threat as it elides ‘…plurality and undermine(s) the conditions necessary for deliberation, good counsel, and shared political judgement’ (Button 2012). Studies have also focused on epistemic hubris—a species of the larger genus—that promotes unwarranted factual certitude or dismissal of inconvenient facts, in pursuit of political aims, to the detriment of collective interests (Barker, Detamble, and Marietta 2022; Pongiglione 2024). Nowhere is this more the case than in the frustrated efforts to forge a collective response to climate change.

Considering its widespread relevance and impacts, we propose to study hubris as a factor that helps explain instability and failure to cooperate. We invite contributors to interrogate this dynamic in relation to a diverse array of cases and subject matter. How do we conceptualise and theorise the role of hubris? How do we identify it and its effects empirically? How do we explain the causes of hubris and its consequences? By what benchmark do we evaluate hubris normatively? 

We welcome papers that empirically and theoretically engage with the idea of hubris in IR. We will explore publication of the workshop papers in a leading peer-reviewed journal.

Those interested should submit their paper’s title and abstract (<250 words), as well as a short bio (<50 words) to the three convenors of the workshop (contact details listed below).

Funds are available to cover overnight accommodation for workshop participants.

Deadline: 6th January 2025

Convenor Contact details:

Alister Miskimmon, Professor, School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics, Queen’s University, Belfast. A.Miskimmon@qub.ac.uk

Ben O’Loughlin, Professor of Politics and International Relations, Director of the New Political Communication Unit, Royal Holloway, University of London. Ben.Oloughlin@rhul.ac.uk

Adam B. Lerner, Associate Professor of Political Science, Director of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts, University of Massachusetts at Lowell. adam_lerner@uml.edu

The workshop is jointly organised by Queen’s University Belfast, the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, and Royal Holloway University of London. Funding has been generously provided by the Queen’s University North America Partnership Investment Fund.

New EU grant for Andreu! “"WHAT-IF": Advanced Simulations for Testing the Effect of the Information Environment”.

Congratulations to NewPolCom’s Andreu Casas, for his successful application to the EU Horizon Scheme! The project is entitled: “"WHAT-IF": Advanced Simulations for Testing the Effect of the Information Environment”. The whole grant is worth 3.1 million euros, and Andreu will leading a work package. 

TITLE: "WHAT-IF": Advanced Simulations for Testing the Effect of the Information Environment

CALL: HORIZON-CL2-2024-DEMOCRACY-01-06 – Computational Social Science approaches in research on democracy

TIMELINE: January 1, 2025 -- December 31, 2028

BACKGROUND: The rapidly evolving political information environment poses significant challenges to democratic citizenship through e.g. the spread of disinformation, rise of hate speech, and lack of cross-cutting information. Methodological challenges, including proprietary data, limited external validity of experiments, and the inability to use societies as experimental playgrounds, hinder our ability to comprehensively understand the impact of interventions and regulations in improving the quality of democratic discourse. 

AIM: WHAT-IF aims to develop and critically assess an empirically grounded simulation functioning as a digital twin of the digital political information environment. This ‘WHAT-IF machine’ can be used to test the effects of potential policy and regulatory interventions on democratic citizenship, offering a tool for evidence-based policy making in the realm of (social) media quality and regulation.

APPROACH: Our innovative approach combines data donation, Agent-Based Modeling and Large Language Models to create the simulation. It is validated using immersive virtual field experiments and by modeling ‘what-if’ scenarios based on proposed policy interventions and regulation. Co-creation with stakeholders including policy makers and citizens ensures close alignment with their needs. Finally, a critical analysis of the whole empirical chain will give insight into the desirability and legal feasibility of datafication and simulation of the political information environment.

IMPACT: Our insights into the role of the political information environment in shaping democratic citizenship will contribute to effective (social) media regulation and interventions. We will significantly contribute to novel Computational Social Science methods: we will integrate advanced AI tools with existing modeling approaches, and use respondent-centered data collection and synthetic data methods to harmonize CCS research with GDPR and other regulations.

PARTICIPANTS: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Barcelona Sumpercomuting Center, Royal Holloway University of London, Universitat Konstanz, University of Barcelona, University of Amsterdam, Europen University Institute, University of Vienna, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vytautas Magnus University, Trinity College Dublin, Open University of Catalonia, Internews Europe, and European Association for Viewers (EAVI). 

Strategic Narrative - published in Chinese

The book Strategic Narrative has been translated and published in Chinese by Shanghai People's Publishing House. It is available here. NPCU’s Ben O’Loughlin wrote the book with Alister Miskimmon and Laura Roselle in 2013. The role of narrative in politics in China, and about China, is a big debate. We shall see what follows the entry of this book.

Climate Politics: How Vulnerable States Communicate On Climate Finance

Our current MSc student Prachi Chitre raises a vital issue in climate communication. It seems states already suffering often severe damage from climate-related causes are telling their story, but what will it take for big, richer states to listen to that story? Read her essay here:

Climate Politics: How Vulnerable States Communicate On Climate Finance 

In recent years, countries that have been severely affected by climate change have raised concerns with international organisations that they need financial assistance in tackling the impacts of climate change. The question of climate finance, climate litigation, and climate communication remains a much-contested topic. Are vulnerable nations communicating their climate needs appropriately and what are the results of this communication? This article argues that such states are indeed effectively communicating their climate needs, however it has not been able to acquire its desired effect, i.e., aid assistance. To back up this claim, three examples of vulnerable nations have been taken into account: Vanuatu, Madagascar, and the Philippines.

Climate finance refers to financing drawn from national and international organisations in order to support the impacts of climate change (UNFCC report, 2023). The UN recognizes ‘common, but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities,’ (UNFCC report, 2023: 2) and states that first world nations should be providing climate finance to developing countries, for two reasons: firstly, the actions of developed nations have contributed more to greenhouse emissions, and the impacts of this are felt most keenly by developing countries. Secondly, most developing nations do not have the capacity or resources to tackle with the impacts of climate change. In 2022, the EU attempted to re-define the term vulnerable when it stated that climate finance should be going only to those nations who are ‘particularly vulnerable’ (Lo, 2022). This was a major point of discussion at the COP27 and COP28 climate talks especially as there was a transitional committee set up to oversee the funding arrangement and was responsible for deciding which states are ‘particularly vulnerable.’

Vulnerability has three dimensions: Is the country affected by extreme and frequent natural disasters? Is human capital at risk? Does the country have the resources to mitigate the impact of these events? (Lo, 2022). In the UN Climate talks, ‘particularly vulnerable’ has come to refer to small island developing states (SIDs) and least developed countries (LDCs) (Lo, 2022). In March 2022, the IPCC attempted to map vulnerability based on income, GDP and indicators such as healthcare, poverty, education and governance. However, the index used was restrictive and several governments do not accept this risk assessment (Lo, 2022). As per the International Rescue Committee, the following three countries: Vanuatu (Pacific Islands), Madagascar, and Philippines are some of the nations who fall under the list of ‘particularly vulnerable’ (Tadesse 2023). These have been used as case studies for this paper.

Vanuatu

Cyclones in Vanuatu. Source: Dr. Christopher Bartlett for Aljazeera. September 2021. Read more here.

One of the most recent and popular examples is the Pacific island state of Vanuatu which is particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events, the incidences of which have increased in recent years. The UN has ranked Vanuatu as the country most prone to natural disasters. In 2023 alone, it had two category four cyclones (Birnbaum, 2023). Law students from Vanuatu set out to change international jurisdiction by approaching the world’s highest court -- the International Court of Justice -- to issue an advisory opinion and to enforce states to provide clearer guidelines. They sent a legal brief to the leaders of all countries in the Pacific Islands forum and set up an NGO called the ‘Pacific Islands Students fighting Climate Change’ (Lyons, 2022). The brief outlined its purpose was not litigation, but instead to provide clarity on guidelines for countries to tackle climate change (Lyons, 2022). It also consisted of statistical studies, and interviews from local citizens in order to demonstrate the effects of climate change. Studies were carried out over twelve to eighteen months, while interviews with citizens of varying age took a couple of weeks. The data was then sent to climate reporting agencies, (both private and governmental) such as Climate Analytics and UNDO Carbon in the US to analyse the data. All these findings were then compiled by the law students in the NGO, drafting it as a legal brief before being sent to leaders of government (Lyons, 2022).

Although the ICJ’s opinion is not legally binding, it can still lead to useful outcomes such as international sanctions, countries losing voting rights, and communities being brought before international tribunals. In short, it can be used to pressure courtrooms and governments to facilitate new pathways for future litigation. Vanuatu’s victory is unique; previous island nations like Palau and the Marshall Islands failed to garner support in the UN for the very same cause, whereas Vanuatu succeeded this year in not just gaining complete support from the UN, but also in successfully getting the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion, asking states to clarify their legal obligations with regards to climate change. In this aspect, it has already set a unique and powerful precedent (Lyons, 2022).

Vanuatu also represents the power of youth-led movements which can spur positive action in terms of climate change (Happel 2023). Having the ICJ issue such an opinion enforces states to recognize that their actions have transborder implications. This demonstrates to the world that future generations are well-informed citizens of the world who are passionate about ensuring their right to a clean environment. Thus, Vanuatu serves as a recent example of a vulnerable nation successfully communicating its climate needs.

Madagascar

Madagascar is also a nation that is consistently ravaged by extreme weather events as a result of the destabilizing effects of climate change. On February 21, 2023 Cyclone Freddy struck the coast of Madagascar and in 2022, Cyclones Batsirai and Emnaty ravaged the country. On the southern side, The Grand Sud is affected by severe droughts and sandstorms. Its geographical location makes it prone to hazardous weather due to changing climatic conditions (Doctors of the World International Network Report, 2023).

Droughts in Madagascar. Source: Reuters, BBC. August 2021. Read more here.

Every year, the Global Climate Legislation Study compiles together Climate Change Legislation in ninety-nine countries. The report addresses Madagascar’s own legislative processes including the steps it has taken to implement the National Climate Change Policy (NCC) since 2010 (Grantham Institute LSE Report, 2015). Its disaster management strategies indicate that it requires a heavy inflow of capital as the country’s agriculture and cottage industries are constantly affected by extreme weather events. The report carries a thorough and in-depth analysis of the country’s climate infrastructure. This includes data from several sectors including transport, agriculture, tourism, education, information processing, coastal fisheries, and tourism. The studies were carried out over five years in order to periodically monitor the effects of climate change. The data was collated and analysed in partnership with the UNDP and these reports were sent to the IMF (LSE Report, 2015).

It is also the second country where a pilot study for diagnostic climate assessment was carried out by the IMF. In November 2022, the IMF put together a report on technical assistance as part of the Climate Macroeconomic Assessment Program which was written in response to the country’s report for technical assistance. The IMF’s report outlines guidance under categories such as mitigation plans, disaster risk management, adaptation plans, macro-fiscal planning, and infrastructure investments. (IMF Climate Macro assessment Program, 2022). 

For a decade Madagascar has been annually compiling technical assistance reports and sending it to the IMF and UNDP. It has a set of policies for climate change which are connected to the NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution), however this has not translated into sectoral strategies. Based on the IMF’s report, it continues to carry out a thorough analysis into the country’s ever-evolving landscape and provides guidelines on streamlining climate mitigation strategies. This serves as another successful example of a vulnerable nation communicating its climate assistance needs.

Philippines

Philippines, an island country in the Western Pacific region has also been classified as ‘particularly vulnerable’ (UN report, 2022). Located in the Tropical Cyclone Belt and the Pacific Ring of Fire, it is highly prone to geological hazards (NDC report to the UNFCCC, 2021). Typhoons Sendong in 2011 and Pablo in 2012 were classified as the world’s deadliest storms. Following these disasters, the government set up the Climate Change Commission (CCC) which oversees policy formulation on climate adaptation and mitigation strategies. (Sering, 2013).

Typhoons in Philippines. Source: UNHCR Photo by Amnesty International. October 2021. Read more here.

In 2021, the country sent its report on Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the UNFCCC. (NDC Report to the UNFCCC, 2021). In response to the ongoing need for aid, the country also sent out its Second National Communication to the UNFCCC in 2022. It provided an overview of the national circumstances in the past five years which included government structure and the economy. The communique also outlined the country’s policies for agriculture, food security, energy, and the transfer of technologies from non-sustainable to sustainable means. Along with policy information, the report also included data from natural disasters, the causes and impacts of the typhoons and the country’s infrastructure to tackle the same. Interviews with local citizens’ whose lives had been negatively affected by frequent and extreme weather events were also included. The raw data was collated over 2021-2022 in accordance with the NCC’s report to the UNFCCC. The report was sent to the UNFCCC and the World Bank which included a detailed plan on conducting research, and installing capacity building and public awareness programs for local communities. (Second National Communication to the UNFCCC, 2022). Thus, Philippines serves as another successful example of an extremely vulnerable nation communicating its climate needs.

In conclusion, considering the examples of Vanuatu, Madagascar and Philippines, one can establish the fact that at-risk countries are effectively communicating their climate needs. Effective communication in this case is defined as documenting and transmitting vital information about climate assistance backed up with relevant evidence, along with conveying the intentions behind the communication (IPCC Handbook, 2018). There are several other nations as well such as Haiti, Syria, Lebanon, and Somalia who face the ravages of climate change and have been asking for assistance from the World Bank, the IMF and the UN. However, in the three case studies mentioned above, the result is that there has been little or inconsistent flow of financial aid.

This does lead to a further question: if the communication has been effective, why is it not able to achieve its desired result? The reasons are many. These reports are often low on the hierarchy of priorities such as national security or terrorism. There is also reticence from first world countries to pay reparations. Most importantly, there is a lack of legally binding obligations on states to deliver aid. This provides scope for further research. It also raises questions about how climate protest is visually represented across the globe, who communicates climate stories and whether there is scientific literacy amongst the masses. Ultimately, the question of climate communication depends on strategic environmental narratives in politics which are often misconstrued or overlooked altogether.

References

Birnbaum, M. (2023) ‘How a small island got the world’s highest court to take on climate justice’, The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/03/29/vanuatu-international-court-un/ (Accessed: 12 October 2023).

Bos J., Gonzalez L., Thwaites J. (2021) ‘Are countries providing enough to the $100 Billion Climate Finance Goal?’, World Resources Institute. Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/developed-countries-contributions-climate-finance-goal#:~:text=Based%20on%20the%20average%20of,%2C%20Sweden%2C%20Denmark%20and%20Austria (Accessed: 12 October 2023). 

‘Climate Change Legislation in Madagascar’, An Excerpt from The 2015 Global Climate Legislation Study: A review of Climate Change Legislation in 99 countries. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MADAGASCAR.pdf (Accessed:14 October 2023).

Happel, R. (2023) ‘Inside the Youth Campaign to Bring Climate Change to the World’s Highest Court’, The Nation. Available at: https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/international-court-justice-climate-change-advisory-opinion-youth-movement/ (Accessed: 8 November 2023).

‘Introduction to Climate Finance’ UNFCC report on Climate Change. Available at: https://unfccc.int/topics/introduction-to-climate-finance (Accessed:15 October 2023).

Loe, J. (2022) ‘Which countries are ‘particularly vulnerable to climate change?’, Climate Home News. Available at: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/12/08/which-countries-are-particularly-vulnerable-to-climate-change/ (Accessed: 13 October 2023).

Lyons, K. (2022) ‘The Pacific Project- From Vanuatu law school to the Hague: the fight to recognise climate harm in international law’, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/20/from-vanuatu-law-school-to-the-hague-the-fight-to-recognise-climate-harm-in-international-law (Accessed: 14 October 2023).

‘Madagascar: A humanitarian emergency driven by the climate crisis’, (2023). Doctors of the World International Network. Available at: https://www.preventionweb.net/news/madagascar-humanitarian-emergency-driven-climate-crisis (Accessed 13 October 2023).

‘Nationally Determined Contribution- Republic of the Philippines’ Report communicated to the UNFCC. 15 April 2021 (online). Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/NDC/2022-06/Philippines%20-%20NDC.pdf (Accessed: 15 October 2023).

‘Principles for effective communication and public engagement on climate change’ A Handbook for IPCC authors. January 2018 (online). Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/Climate-Outreach-IPCC-communications-handbook.pdf  (Accessed 8 November 2023).

Santelli, M. (2021) ‘Lessons in environmental news reporting from Brazil’, Reuters Institute of Politics and Journalism Oxford. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-09/RISJ_Final%20Report_Adele_2021_Final%20%281%29.pdf (Accessed 15 October 2023).

Second National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change- Philippines. 10 May 2022 (online). Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/phlnc2.pdf (Accessed: 12 October 2023).

Sering, L. (2013) ‘Filipinos, how are you adapting to climate change? You ask, we answer’, East Asia and Pacific on the rise: World Bank blogs. Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/filipinos-how-are-you-adapting-to-climate-change-you-ask-we-answer (Accessed 11 October 2023).

Soubeyran E., Macquarie R. (2023) ‘What is Climate Finance?’, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the. Environment, London School of Economics. Available at: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/explainers/what-is-climate-finance-and-where-will-it-come-from/ (Accessed: 13 October 2023).

‘Ten Countries at risk of climate disaster’, (2023) The IRC in the UK. Available at: https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/10-countries-risk-climate-disaster (Accessed: 14 October 2023).

Congratulations to Scott Downham, PhD

We happy to announce that Scott Downham passed his PhD viva, for the thesis, How Few Citizens are Socialised into Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers, and the Implications for Democracy. His thesis was co-supervised by Ben O’Loughlin and James Sloam, and his examiners were Prof. Shakuntala Banaji (LSE) and Dr. Richard Fletcher (University of Oxford). Thanks to Prof. Joost van Spanje and Prof. Sarah Childs for providing substantive suggestions in Scott's annual reviews. Scott is already a Lecturer at King’s College London.

How Few Citizens are Socialised into Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers, and the Implications for Democracy

Since the shock popularity and victories of Brexit and Donald Trump, there has been concern that citizens exist in democratically dysfunctional ideological bubbles, where they only hear likeminded perspectives. Researchers have examined the extent of these bubbles - particularly through analysis of digital platforms such as search engines and social media. However, these studies are limited in either external or internal validity. This study uses a holistic approach, exploring causes and effects of ‘embubblement’ in one marginal, perhaps high-risk group, young people, who get more news online and are considered more impressionable. This mixed-methods digital ethnography contains a 10-wave cohort study, diary study hybrid. One day a month for 10 months, participants aged 16-18 (n=20) captured any political communication they encountered across all mediums - online and in-person. Embubblement is operationalised not just as the extent to which participants encounter disagreement, but by looking at whether citizens are open-minded to the opposing perspectives. Regression analysis suggests strength of partisanship positively correlates with embubblement (H1), though no participants were strongly embubbled (even strong partisans). No statistically significant correlations emerged between embubblement and increased embubblement over time (H2) or political polarisation (H3). Embubblement did, however, positively correlate with degree of political engagement (H4). Ethnography explored what causes embubblement (RQ1). Embubblement occurred rarely, influenced by structural factors: ‘socialising agents’, such as family, peers, education, media, and events. This thesis makes a new contribution, generating a typology of factors that shape embubblement, incorporating an agent-centred approach. Main factors were agreeable news sites, apps and hyperpartisan social media communities. The research addresses the question of agency – for example, a user making a new TikTok account, to reset personalisation algorithms after realising the existing ones were radicalising her. Implications for schools and policy-makers are addressed through recommendations on how to encourage political engagement without embubbling citizens. 

Does digital media give us more or less control of our personal identity narratives?

Reflecting on news from Israel and Gaza, our recent Narratives in World Politics student Anais Almi offers some thoughts about how our personal and social identities work as events unfold in the world.

Does digital media give us more or less control of our personal identity narratives?

We live in an era where our daily information is processed through digital media. We are flooded with an abundance of news and opinions daily. What do we trust? What do we believe? I will argue that digital media as an environment allows for our collective identity to rise while making our personal identity more defined and precise. I look at this through an Autonomous framework given by Weinstein, and a listener and speaker base defence from Scanlon and Shiffrin. I will also look at my personal experience through an autoethnography framework. I argue that we have seen a rise of a collective identity narrative within digital media during Covid-19. Yes, these online communities can create confusion regarding our personal identity narrative. However, through the framework chosen, I will demonstrate that this allows us as individuals to be more specific in our choices regarding 'post', 'share' or 'follow', leading us to have a more precise and defined personal identity.

Digital media as an environment embodies freedom of speech. Autonomy, as described by Weinstein, entails self-direction and living according to one's authentic desires and identity. Autonomy is compromised when others make decisions on our behalf, substituting their judgment for ours. This concept can be applied to digital media, where two defences challenge the limits on autonomy in free speech. First, Scanlon's listener-based defence argues that autonomous individuals must independently consider judgments about what to believe or do. The responsibility for any harm resulting from speech lies with individual receivers who, as autonomous agents, make choices based on the information they receive. This perspective can be linked to digital media algorithms. Second, Shiffrin's speaker-based defence posits that autonomous thinkers have an interest in knowing the contents of their own minds, thinking, exercising their imaginations, and forming authentic identities. Speech, from both speakers and listeners, is essential to realizing these interests.

This defence can also be connected to personal experiences with online communities. Our personal identity narratives are rooted in factors such as culture, language, family values, religion, and political views. Laura Roselle's study reveals a link between family history stories, memories, and political views, suggesting that family history narratives influence our political perspectives (Roselle and Husser, 2021). Examining digital media as an environment reveals its role in shaping our personal identity narratives. Digital media employ algorithms that cater content to our interests, and we actively engage with and select content that aligns with our personal identities. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the engagement in online communities surged, driven by the need for connection and shared narratives. This growth was not just about forming social groups but about creating communities that shared common narratives, as seen in movements like Black Lives Matter and Take Your Hands Off My Hijab. Individuals blended aspects of their personal identity narratives within digital media with these communities, resulting in the formation of collective identities.

Image of the model Rawdah Mohamed who started the movement on social media with this image - see https://worldhijabday.com/hands-off-my-hijab/

One can argue that being placed into such online community can confuse our personal identity. What is ours, and what is others? People's opinions come and go, but what do we make of our own? This is where the autonomous framework becomes crucia, where digital media serve as a hub for information and free speech. While external factors like location, peer influence, and political affiliations impact our online presence, we actively shape our digital identity. We make choices about what the algorithm presents to us, but it's important to note that these choices are influenced by our narrative outside the digital realm.

Additional daily time spent on social media platforms by users in the United States due to coronavirus pandemic as of March 2020 - see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1116148/more-time-spent-social-media-platforms-users-usa-coronavirus/

Digital media offers a multitude of perspectives on our personal identity narrative, potentially causing confusion. Two defenses emerge to address this confusion. The listener-based defense asserts that we process others' input and independently form our output. Applied to digital media, this means the algorithm may present various viewpoints on a topic, but we autonomously select the one that aligns with our personal identity narrative. The speaker-based defense argues that, to truly understand our interests, we must actively engage as both speakers and listeners. In this context, individuals influence each other's narratives, leading to the formation of collective identities in online communities. This sharing of narratives enhances our personal identity rather than overshadowing it. It encourages us to refine our personal identity by testing our beliefs against others, ensuring a more precise alignment with our true interests. Creating a collective narrative doesn't erase our personal narrative but enriches it through interaction and mutual influence.

Looking at my personal experience, I never really found myself a part of an online community. I have always identified as a Belgian and Tunisian girl who was brought up with two faiths. The way I identified had never been a problem for me; it was a conversation starter. People always seemed fascinated how two religions that hated each other could marry and let their children learn about other religions. My mom is Jewish, my dad is Muslim, and I went to a Catholic school. I have always been proud to say how I identified until May 2021, the year of me turning 20, I was faced with a dilemma my whole identity was being questioned; digital media as a whole made me question my personal identity narrative.

The Israeli and Palestinian conflict has been something I was exposed to relatively young. My parents had explained to me briefly what it was about and why people found it so great that they were married due to the stigma around the Jewish and Muslim hate. I quickly understood that this was due to historical events and lands, not the people or their beliefs. When Israel started to bomb Palestine, I genuinely couldn't understand how Israelis could be happy about it. For me, it was attacking human rights, nothing to do with religion. Israeli citizens are brought up with a different way to view this conflict that we, as Western citizens are not being taught. For them, this land is theirs. It is their due, hence why it is justifiable for them to take action for it. This is where things got confusing for me. I have many American Jewish friends online who openly took a stand for Israel; I was disgusted how they could not see they were hurting people. I also have many Muslim friends who took a stand, and most of my Western friends did too; they weren't shaming the government's action. Many were shaming the people - but not as a nationality but as a religion. It wasn't about Israel, it was about Jewish people. This is where I started to question myself, my stands, my friends, and my own narrative. Who am I? What am I supposed to support? I did not agree with the people that shamed the Jewish faith, and I did not agree with the people that were not seeing how it was purely the destruction of lives.

I was lost, but after deep reflection, I came to my senses. I did not have to fit the mould, and I took the stand, my stand which was: humanity. I posted, "I am both Muslim and Jewish - I am for human rights, not ethnic cleansing. You can be Pro-Palestine without being Anti-Semitic, so please toward your anger to the Israeli government, not the Jewish community. As Muslims, we know far too well what it is to be painted with the same brush as the evil individuals that do not represent us, so please know the difference and educate yourself before making anti-Semitic judgements." I was scared about people's reactions; I had been asked multiple times my stand and still had not answered. I became anxious, worried that I would lose friends. This post changed me, the responses I had gotten were supportive, and it turns out that many people struggled with the same dilemma as I did. By sharing my own narrative and struggle with it, people started to share their own. Together, we found a collective identity that lies in the middle of a conflict that is way bigger than us. I think if I had not taken the autonomous decision to share my thoughts, I might have never had a response to my dilemma. I might have never refined my personal identity narrative to find a collective that makes me who I am.

A Palestinian demonstrator holds a banner of the Facebook logo. © 2016 Mohammed Talatene/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

More recently in October 2023 we’ve seen a second wave of war in the Middle East. Israel was attacked and all the Western media and politicians sided with them, cutting all aid to Palestinians civilians. This time around things are different. It’s the digital narrative against the political discourse. Some people most material from inside the conflict, this video by Plestia Alaqad for instance:

When looking at social media recently I’ve been disgusted if not horrified by the things we interact with. The main thing I’ve noticed which isn’t mentioned in the mainstream media is that most religious Jews are against the Israeli government. Most of them don’t agree with the Zionist views and their take on Palestine. Palestine is undergoing a genocide in my opinion. This isn’t my personal view talking but numbers. The Western politicians all say they don’t condone act of terrorism but what about what Israel is doing?

Picture taken in a local supermarket by Yehia Hamza on Thursday the 19th of October 2023.

This second wave raised in me questions I had left behind me a while ago, things such as do I need to pick a side? Do I pick my mom’s or my dad’s side? This made me question my personal identity as well as my collective identity. But once again, I stood my ground and chose humanity. In this case I do not condone the act of terrorism by the Hamas terrorist group but neither do I agree with cutting all supplied to water, food and electricity to innocent civilians. In my opinion this war has now gone far past a conflict or an issue on religion. This has raised concerns for me about how we view communities. Why do we need to have a ‘bad guy’? Why is one right and the other wrong? I’ve noticed that many Jews and Muslims aligned against the political discourse surrounding this conflict, they all choose humanity. Of course, we always have radical people online who want their voice to be heard more than others, but how do they expect to be heard if all they do is attack someone else’s religious belief?

Online montage – no Copyright – illustrates rapid change in discourse by politicians.

I think this new era of interacting with war material first-hand really shed a light to the wider public about media biases. More and more people want justice not for them but for all both Israelis and Palestinians. Why? It is because at the end of the day they are all just humans who have a personal identity which is linked to a community identity. These identities all link due to values and morals. So why blame a religion when truly the problem is the political discourse surrounding this conflict? Many people started calling out media outlets for their bias questions and statement in favour of Israel. What doesn’t seem to make sense to me is how or more so why do they allow the Israeli government to bomb UN aid relief, schools, hospitals and much more. If we state that we do not condone terrorist acts what does this mean? Are we allowing genocide? Are we allowing civilians who have nothing to do with this die? Many pro-Israel voices say they support Palestine and are just against Hamas, but how can we explain the Israeli targets? These are all questions I cannot answer but I found refuge in my online community. None of us understand this thought process. We are all here for humanity and don’t understand why some would want to destroy others. Lastly, I’d like to go back to the algorithm. Recently it’s been promoting pro-Israeli posts and demonetizing pro-Palestine posts. Is this something we’re going to have to worry about from now on? Is our own online identity being redefined by the system?

This goes to prove that looking at digital media as an environment of autonomous freedom of speech while taking into account its defence does allow for our collective identity to rise, while making our personal identity more defined and precise. This second wave in the Middle East has raised some very interesting questions that we all can explore further.

Bibliography:

·       Botticello, C. (2022). 105 Online Community Stats To Know: The Complete List (2021). [online] peerboard.com. Available at: https://peerboard.com/resources/online-community-statistics [Accessed 6 Feb. 2022].

·       Dunn, T.R. and Myers, W.B. (2020). Contemporary Autoethnography Is Digital Autoethnography. Journal of Autoethnography, 1(1), pp.43–59.

·       Olson, E.T. (2015). Personal Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). [online] Stanford.edu. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/.

·       PeerBoard (2021). Users Are Tired of Social Media Groups and Are Shifting to Independent Online Communities, New Study by PeerBoard. [online] GlobeNewswire News Room. Available at: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/10/26/2320953/0/en/Users-Are-Tired-of-Social-Media-Groups-and-Are-Shifting-to-Independent-Online-Communities-New-Study-by-PeerBoard.html [Accessed 6 Feb. 2022].

·       Roselle, L. and Husser, Ja. (2021). The Political Consequences of Family Memories - PowerPoint Presentation. Department of Political Science and Policy Studies. PowerPoint Given in Week 3: Personal Identity Narrative for PR3498 by Laura Roselle on 31/01/2022.

·       Scanlon, T. (1972). A Theory of Freedom of Expression. Philosophy & Public Affairs, [online] 1(2), pp.204–226. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2264971.

·       Shiffrin, S.V. (2011). A thinker-based approach to freedom of speech. Constitutional Commentary, [online] Volume 27(Number 2). Available at: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/163435 [Accessed 6 Feb. 2022].

·       Weinstein, J. (2011). PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY AS THE CENTRAL VALUE OF AMERICAN FREE SPEECH DOCTRINE. Virginia Law Review, [online] 97(3), pp.491–514. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41261517?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 27 Feb. 2021].

Shakespearean politics and the politics of Shakespeare, by Prachi Chitre

Our new MSc student Prachi Chitre has written an excellent piece on the politics of culture, and culture of politics. Read here:

Shakespearean politics and the politics of Shakespeare

Hath not a Jew eyes? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

(Shakespeare, 2005, 5.3:45)

It’s no secret that the Bard was the master of political intrigue. Some of his most famous plays – Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Merchant of Venice, and The Tempest – all contain varying currents of historical politics at the time. Several critics have expounded heavily on how Shakespeare aptly captured and depicted a range of human characters, personalities and emotions, but perhaps more importantly how relevant these depictions are in today’s times too.

Shakespeare in India (The Hindu)

In India in 2018 there was a project started by schools across the country called Native Shakespeare, which encouraged the reading of various Shakespearean texts in native languages such as Hindi, Marathi, Gujarati and Kannada. The purpose behind this was to celebrate two unique cultures – an English tradition, reinterpreted by local peoples in their native languages. The project was an enormous success. At the time, I was working as an educator with a local school in my city for special needs children.

As one of the curriculum directors for the school, I engaged with the Maharashtrian Institute for Sign Language in order to adapt the play The Tempest for the school children. This involved developing a special curriculum and building apps which would convert the original text into Marathi and enable students to adapt and perform the play. The launch of this project had mixed reactions. From the cultural elite, it was a positive initiative to educate young minds and teach children about some of the finest literature that was ever written. On the other hand, certain media outlets viewed this as another form of colonialism. Why bring Shakespeare into the curriculum at all? Didn’t India have its own brilliant writers such as Tagore, Narayan, Seth and Desai?

At its very core, The Tempest – other than being a fantastical drama filled with magic, fairies and illusions -- is also deeply political. It talks about a ruler who was usurped, banished and who conquers a native island. It is also a story about reclamation and vengeance. Prospero’s role as ultimate dictator and authoritarian ruler, his control over Ariel, Caliban and his own daughter Miranda, raise pertinent questions of tyranny and rule. Who is a good leader? What are the qualities that draw a fine line between a hero and a despot? And most importantly, is anyone justified in any sort of conquest? Although written almost 500 years ago, Shakespeare’s last play has resounding echoes in today’s political climate. India, as the world’s largest democracy, is forced to encounter her own conundrum of tyranny, law, order and conquest. Almost seventy years after independence, she is struggling with the crushing weight of religious persecution, division and an inherent fear of diversity, differences and freedom of thought. Sectarianism tears the country apart. As an immigrant I must reckon Indians to ask themselves the same questions which Prospero asks in the Tempest: Are we really a brave new world? (Shakespeare, 2005, 5.5:20)

In 2011, a hip-hop artist Akala set in motion a project that explored global cultural debates about the power of language and its interpretations across the world. Akala, an award winning hip-hop artist, collaborated with the British Council in order to promote the arts across multiple countries including Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Africa. He launched the Hip-hop Shakespeare Company, a music production house and invited famous actors such as Sir Ian McKellen and Cicely Berry to participate. Merchant of Venice was one of his special productions that incorporated hip-hop into the script, adapting the play for a 21st century audience. This was a unique initiative to reach out to millennials and the Gen-Z population who commonly regard Shakespeare as archaic and out of date. But Akala managed to appeal to the sensibility of the younger generations by speaking their language and passing on the timeless essence of fine literature and art. (TedX x 2011)

Akala x Shakespeare (Google Images)

            Merchant of Venice addresses religious persecution. But it also talks about persecution in general: the rich versus the poor, the privileged versus the unprivileged, the first world versus the third world. In the 21st century, we are not any far from persecution than audiences in the 16th century knew. At the time of writing this article, the war against Ukraine is very much being waged, another war in Israel-Palestine has recently erupted, not to mention the innumerable conflicts and examples of civil violence happening in the Middle East, Africa, and across Europe. Although historical contexts and timelines might vary, the narrative is always the same: it is the weaker sections of society being persecuted by the supposedly stronger, dominating ones. America in particular seems to encounter persecution on a new level of intolerance and polarisation: gun control, abortion rights, and anti-immigrant spirit all point towards a breakdown in democratic systems and a decline in inclusive spirit.

             Last, but not the least, perhaps my favourite Shakespearean drama would have to be Julius Caesar. In this play, probably Shakespeare’s most masterfully-packed political tragedy, readers encounter a real-historical event that was brought to life by the playwright. The fluidity and impact of language, the quick shift of scenes and the thunderous speeches by Brutus and Antony continue to win hearts even today. Last year, I had the opportunity to witness an adaptation of Julius Caesar at the National Theatre in London. It was a unique, post-modern version in which Caesar was a successful finance tycoon. It also had fun features such as mapping the Tube’s arrival onto Caesar’s death: ‘One minute until Julius Caesar dies,’ building a momentum which was volcanic. (Julius Caesar, 2022)

Julius Caesar, London (Archives, Royal National Theatre)

What was interesting about the postmodern version was that the themes of murder, betrayal, succession and political turmoil are as in tune with a 21st century world as they were with 16th century Elizabethan England. One could hardly misplace the new Julius Caesar at Wall Street as compared to the original Roman general. This play was also interactive. The audience were encouraged to complete online surveys during performances, the results of which were displayed on a screen. The data from all these surveys was then compiled and fed into an Instagram series called: Et tu Brute? It aimed to understand how modern audiences feel about large-scale political betrayal, assassination, drama and the continuation of dominant empires (no different than Rome in 44 BC).

The survey asked some thought-provoking questions: Do the means always justify the ends? Do we answer first to the call of duty or to personal convictions? What separates the personal from the political? How do we deify our leaders and then justify their downfall? As we loom towards a new technological, political and economic dawn in the history of mankind, do we really follow Brutus’ advice, ‘there’s a tide in the affairs of men, when taken at the flood leads on to fortune’ (Shakespeare, 2005, 1.2:177) or like Cassius, do we reluctantly admit that ‘The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves?’ (Shakespeare, 2005, 1.2:155)

References

Acharya, S. (2019). ‘Should Shakespeare Still be Taught in Indian Schools?’, The Curious  Reader, (April), pp.8-15

Dickinson, A. (2016). ‘Global Shakespeare’, British Library, 17(3), pp. 257-268. doi: https://www.bl.uk/shakespeare/articles/global-shakespeare

Julius Caesar. William Shakespeare. (2022). Directed by David Smith. [National Theatre, London. 14 November].

Shakespeare, W. (2005). Merchant of Venice. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 5.3:45.

Shakespeare, W. (2005). The Tempest. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 5.5:20.

Shakespeare, W. (2005). Julius Caesar. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 1.2:177.

Shakespeare, W. (2005). Julius Caesar. Edited by Stephen Greenblatt. London: Penguin. 1.2:155.

TedXTalks (2011) Hip-Hop & Shakespeare? Akala at TEDXAldeburgh. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSbtkLA3GrY

Call for papers: What Matters? The Politics of Narrating War

What Matters? The Politics of Narrating War

University of Massachusetts Lowell, 17 May 2024

This workshop brings scholars together to investigate how governments generate public support for foreign policy in times of war. We ask scholars to consider a global politics of pluralist concepts and experiences of history, entanglement, identity and other processes, and what contestation this generates about, ultimately, what matters. By this we mean the moral and political imperatives but also, critically, the philosophical conceptions people hold about what “stuff” in the world must be considered to make sense of a war, and what can be ignored.  

It begins with the premise that narrations of conflict are not merely representations of the conflict itself, but also ontologically productive. Political leaders and media elites’ narratives create for their audiences novel scientific ontologies—catalogues of substances and processes involved in the situation under investigation. These scientific ontologies serve as mental maps and, in turn, they promote strategic purposes, encouraging certain policy responses and discouraging others. How do political and media actors create such maps for audiences, and does this shape how audiences think of those conflicts and their state’s foreign policies? How do citizens themselves use digital media to piece together what is meaningful about a war – what counts? Following Lerner and O’Loughlin’s recent article in International Studies Quarterly, we refer to these narratives as strategic ontologies. As they are continually narrated, strategic ontologies’ innovations can shape political imaginaries and policy preferences, often enduring beyond the context in which they are originally formulated.

Inspired by this framework, this workshop welcomes both theoretical and empirical contributions relating to the politics of narrating war. How do political and media elites and all other actors – NGOs, citizens, legal bodies, and so on – narrate what matters in a conflict? What impacts do these mental maps or ‘strategic ontologies’ have? Further, what ethical issues are at stake in choosing between alternative narratives of conflict? What do differing narratives highlight and occlude?

The workshop is jointly sponsored by the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, Queen’s University Belfast because of its longstanding research and exchange partnerships with US universities, and the journal Media, War, and Conflict, which has published over a decade of research on the role of war narratives in both contemporary and historical cases. The goals will be to foster dialogue about the politics of narrating war, as well as to bring together potential contributions for a special issue.

Those interested should submit their paper’s title and abstract (<250 words), as well as a short bio (<50 words) to the three convenors of the workshop (contact details listed below).

Funds are available to cover some of the costs of transport and lodging for selected workshop participants. Please indicate whether you wish to be considered for funding of those costs.

Deadline: 15 November 2023

Adam B. Lerner

Associate Professor of Political Science, Director of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts
University of Massachusetts at Lowell

adam_lerner@uml.edu

Alister Miskimmon

Professor, School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics, Queen’s University, Belfast

A.Miskimmon@qub.ac.uk

Ben O’Loughlin

Professor of Politics and International Relations, Director of the New Political Communication Unit, Royal Holloway, University of London

Ben.Oloughlin@rhul.ac.uk

Strategic ontologies - how to agree on what we even communicate about?

Political disagreement occurs often because actors might use the same words but they’re talking about very different things. Adam Lerner and Ben O’Loughlin have published an article explaining this, entitled, Strategic Ontologies: Narrative and Meso-Level Theorizing in International Politics. Read it here in International Studies Quarterly. Ben also made a podcast explaining the idea — listen to it here — kindly hosted by Will Youmans at George Washington University.

This is a very basic point. What drives many disputes is nobody can agree what actually exists, so they argue about different processes, entities, and experiences. UK leaders talk about climate change in terms of new technology, new jobs, changing energy supplies. In other parts of the world, if you ask about climate change people will talk about lives already lost, not being able to leave the house, likely migration to places on earth where its not 40-50 degrees, and their fear of conflict and war that migration could cause. They talk about the loss of land that is sacred and fundamental to their identity. Its a completely different conversation. Chinese leaders bring in ideas about nature's relationship to man, but downplay any question of responsibility. Every region has its own way of classifying what exists and where attention must focus. 

Political leaders do some of this deliberately. Western and Chinese leaders don't want to talk about how poor countries understand climate change because if those leaders accept that poor countries’ stuff is what is actually happening, the West and China would be legally liable, and have to pay reparations on a huge scale for many decades. Hence, this talk about what 'stuff' counts, or what ontology, is strategic.

Ben has observed this often when working with policymakers. Many decide first what counts, which implies what they will model, what targets they could aim for using that model, and they base decisions on those targets. Anything else, they ignore. But people in other countries prioritise what our leaders ignore even on the same issue.

How anyone can bridge this is a big debate in the field of ethics right now. How to entertain multiple ontologies at once so that we can create dialogue? We live in a pluriverse of competing ontologies that few can comprehend. This is where communication could help, but only when people are open to moving towards that wider comprehension.

Programme for 16-17 May Political Agency London symposium

PROGRAMME TUESDAY 16 MAY 2023

Please note paper abstracts are available to read here.

Venue

Senate House (room 104) - University of London,

Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HU.

Travel guidance is here.

Hosted by

The New Political Communication Unit and

The Gender Institute

Royal Holloway University of London

Registration for in-person and online attendants at this link

More info and updates http://www.newpolcom.rhul.ac.uk

10.30-12.15

Early Career Researchers Workshop

Fresh Perspectives and Research Projects

Discussant > Prof Ben O’Loughlin, Director of Newpolcom

Scott Downham, Royal Holloway

‘How only some Citizens are Socialised into Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers. The Implications for Agency on Digital Platforms’

Hugh Hammond, Royal Holloway

‘Thought and Body in Platform Labour’

Arvind Kumar, Royal Holloway

‘Invention of Resistance Strategies against Everyday Discrimination. Digital Ethnographic Study of Anti-Caste Twitter Spaces in India’

Dr Cat Morgan, Heriot-Watt University

‘Digital Trade Union Work: Correcting Misinformation About Strike Action’

Chris Pavlakis, Northumbria University

‘Nested precarities of creative labor on social media’

Jonathan Pettifer, University of Birmingham

‘Norm Contestation through Digital Platforms and Social Media’

13.00-15.00

Panel Commodities vs Commons

Chair > Dr Marco Guglielmo

Keynote > Prof Phoebe Moore, University of Essex

‘The Social Relations of Data Production and Diminishing Rights to the Subject’

Guest Speaker > Gabriele Masci, Open Impact

Scott Downham, Royal Holloway

‘Public Attitudes towards Data use’

Dr Ilona Steiler, Tampere University, Finland

‘Political agency in the platform economy: a matter of time’

Dr Bradley Ward, University of Birmingham

‘Progressive Network Systems. The Political Organisation of Disruptive Agency in the Digital Commons’

15.15-17.15

Panel Surveillance vs Empowerment

Chair > Prof Ben O’Loughlin

Keynote > Dr Elinor Carmi, City University of London

‘To become empowered click here: Shaping people's agency according to tech bros tales’

Guest Speaker > Dr Declan McDowell-Naylor

Information Commissioner’s Office

Rachel Brock, University of Liverpool

‘Visibility as Vulnerability: Surveillance Capitalism's Threat to Women in Online Political Spaces’

Nathan Critch, University of Birmingham

‘Public Inquiries and Digital Platforms: Spaces of Resistance or Continued Containment?’

Dr Ramón Villaplana Jiménez, Catholic University of Lille, France ‘Political parties as –questionable– agents for openness’

PROGRAMME WEDNESDAY 17 MAY 2023

10.30-12.15

Panel Virtual Realities and Artificial Intelligence

Chair > Dr Pauline Heinrichs

Keynote > Dr Emiliano Treré, Cardiff University

‘Emerging shapes of domination, resistance and imagination in the age of AI’

Guest Speaker > Shehani Fernando, Immersive Creator

Jake Pitre, Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada

‘Rhetorical Imaginaries: Theoretical Approaches to Platform Futures’

Dr Scott Wark, University of Kent

Dr Thao Phan, Monash University, Australia

‘Race, by Proxy’

13.00-15.00

Panel Theoretical Perspectives

Chair > Dr Marco Guglielmo

Keynote > Dr Alex Williams, University of East Anglia

‘On Platform Hegemony: The Metapolitics of Digital Infrastructures’

Guest Speaker > Dr Nikki Soo, TikTok

Antonia Alecu, University of Birmingham

‘Digital platforms as third spaces of gender performance and resistance’

Dr Mikael Andéhn, Royal Holloway

‘Exiting the rabbit hole’

Paul Geyer, University of Leeds

‘The next ideological phase of social media: the subscription model and subscription subject’

15.15-17.00

Roundtable

Future Challenges and Research Agendas

The speakers and guests will discuss theoretical perspectives and empirical research on the tensions that arise from the political agency within and of platform societies.

Digital platforms reshape social relations across multiple dimensions, defining new routes to explore the possibilities of exploitation and liberation in capital/labour, human/nature, and gender relations.

The starting point for our symposium is that two tensions shape political contestation in platform societies:

§  The first is the contestation over data commodification versus the promotion of digital commons.

§  The second tension arises between digitalisation as a tool for authoritarian surveillance or as a means for democratic empowerment.

Finally, we seek to stimulate fresh debates on the future directions of digitalisation, and what new risks and opportunities may be emerging for the decades to come.