Song Xin: Western Leftist Re-examination of Media Imperialism Theory in the Digital Age
Entering the second decade of the 21st century, a significant body of literature has emerged in which Western leftist scholars re-examine the theory of media imperialism. These scholars have turned their attention to new changes in the capitalist world triggered by innovations in media technology, focusing on research topics and categories such as media monopoly, digital labor, and the new media order. At the same time, they emphasize excavating new "academic growth points" presented by these issues within the context of the digital age. In a climate where the critique of digital labor has become a major trend in social science criticism, Western leftist scholars have made digital labor the focal point of their critique of media imperialism. In doing so, they have filled the critical void regarding labor within the field of the political economy of communication and analyzed the role of digital labor within imperialism during the era of digital capitalism. Furthermore, Western leftist scholars have adhered to the original mission of media imperialism theory regarding the establishment of a New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO), formulating new visions for the media sphere in the digital age. Systematically organizing the new research on media imperialism conducted by Western leftist scholars based on digital labor, and assessing their new historical visions for future media development, not only helps clarify academic doubts regarding imperialist theory—thereby exposing new forms of imperialist digital hegemony—but also provides a more current theoretical reference for the Chinese academic community to understand and respond to contemporary shifts in media imperialism.
I. Defense and Reflection on Media Imperialism Theory by Western Leftist Scholars
Media imperialism theory dominated international communication thought in the 1970s and early 1980s; it is a theory for studying the expansion of capitalism and the relations of cultural domination between developed and underdeveloped nations. By the 1980s and 1990s, the challenges posed to Marxist theory by the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe weakened imperialist research within the field of communication. Simultaneously, with the development of economic globalization, "globalization" and other related terms such as "reverse flow," "interconnectedness," and "hybridity" challenged the concept of imperialism, becoming new slogans for international relations in the fields of media and communication. However, entering the 21st century—especially after the 2008 financial crisis triggered a depression in the capitalist world economy—Western leftist scholars launched a wave of reflection on the inherent flaws of the capitalist system itself from a Marxist paradigm. Furthermore, the development of social media in the digital age prompted a diversification of information exchange, and the contradictions between developed capitalist countries and developing countries in the media sphere gradually escalated. Western leftist scholars argue that the internet has not changed the imperialist behavior of information hegemony and cultural invasion practiced by developed capitalist countries. At the same time, these countries control the dominant power over the "attention economy" in the internet era, keeping the economic development of developing countries in a suppressed state and creating various issues such as new cultural identity crises and cultural conflicts. Consequently, Western leftist scholars have traced the evolutionary logic and practical paths of media imperialism, summarizing experiences and reflecting on shortcomings to defend and revise media imperialism theory.
(1) Responding to Academic Doubts and Defending the Analytical Framework of Media Imperialism Theory
Western leftist scholars have responded to the view that the diversification of information exchange brought about by the development of internet platforms in developing countries has rendered the analytical framework of media imperialism obsolete. Traditional media imperialism theory holds that global informational inequality is manifested by information flowing primarily from developed to developing countries, with imported cultural products exerting ideological influence on the latter. In the era of digital capitalism, the development of social media has facilitated the diversification of information exchange. Some critics of media imperialism theory thus argue that the traditional analytical framework is outdated. For instance, Munawar Sabir argues that the development of the internet and social media has neutralized media imperialism, enabling internet users in developing countries to better receive and maintain diverse cultures rather than merely absorbing and promoting Western culture. In Media Imperialism and the Developing World, he notes: "Because of the impact of the internet or social media, the barriers of time and distance have been eliminated, and people continue to participate in their 'local' culture. Thus, the internet or social media can be a tool for preserving and celebrating domestic culture, because the receiver or viewer of information on social media is not a passive listener. Therefore, desired or designed information cannot be imposed upon them."
Western leftist scholars have defended the analytical framework of media imperialism theory and refuted such views. Peter Sekloča [1], in Center and Periphery: Productive Forces and the Global Networked Public Sphere, points out that internet platforms are not a medium of equal exchange. In the era of digital capitalism, "platforms, by virtue of their monopoly status, are able to shape global communication more than ever before." Sekloča believes that while the internet provides "reversibility" for users in developing countries, this reversibility does not necessarily imply reciprocity. Analyzing the infrastructural development of internet platforms in developing countries, he further notes that "in the developing world, infrastructure in the form of fixed broadband connections was built primarily for commercial purposes, while mobile broadband connections via cellular phones have become available to final consumers. On a global scale, capital still has vast space for colonization." This perspective suggests that the essence of internet platform development in developing countries is to provide conditions for capitalist profit-seeking. Therefore, the development of internet platforms has not solved the problem of media imperialism; the analytical framework of media imperialism theory remains valid.
(2) Reflecting on Internal Problems and Discussing the Research Scope of Media Imperialism Theory
Some Western leftist scholars have reviewed the historical circumstances of media imperialism, noting that over the past 20 years, much work on international communication has been dominated by intellectual trends that tend to downplay the role of the state. Colin Sparks argues that given the increase in private economic activity brought about by economic globalization, the role of the state in international exchange has been slighted: "Insofar as the state is recognized as a significant factor in cultural exchange, it is acknowledged through the lens of 'soft power' rather than 'imperialism.'" In the fields of culture and media, "globalization," along with terms like "reverse flow," "interconnectedness," and "hybridity," became the new slogans for international relations in media and communication. "We can note a central element shared by many variants: it systematically marginalizes the role of the state." In response, Sparks analyzed the reasons for this shift from the perspective of media imperialism theory itself, arguing that "the most major internal problem of the imperialist paradigm is the passivity brought to the paradigm by its focus on the international level. The most original configurations of the paradigm explicitly recognized internal differentiation, i.e., the struggle between classes within the state... [whereas now] the vital recognition of internalization is either abandoned entirely or reduced in importance."
However, Kaarle Nordenstreng, in the article "How the New World Order and Imperialism Challenge Media Studies," critiqued Sparks' assertion. Nordenstreng argues that by limiting media imperialism to the actions of the state, Sparks "ignores the foundation pushed at the forefront of imperialist theory: namely, the universalization of the requirements of capital through the joint action of both the state and capital." Scholars such as Marko Ampuja also believe that "we find Sparks' recent defensive analysis of media imperialism to be too limited." They hope to avoid a narrow understanding of media imperialism, arguing that "a more comprehensive theory of imperialism and media imperialism must take into account the dialectical and often tension-filled coexistence of capitalist (economic) imperialism and territorial (geopolitical) imperialism." That is to say, imperialism involves not only competition between states but also competition between capitals and between capitalists. Alex Callinicos shares this view: "From a Marxist perspective, imperialism is the result of the fusion of two forms of competition—the economic struggle between capitals and the geopolitical competition between states."
Some Western leftist scholars suggest that media imperialism also occurs within states. Munawar Sabir argues: "Media imperialism does not always occur on an international or global scale. If a media group or organization is dominant within a single country, this is also a form of media imperialism." Furthermore, Sabir believes that media within a country also creates imperialism: "Even within the same country, there are a few media organizations or specific local television centers that control the quantity, quality, content, and flow of news and other programs. Before addressing global imperialism, communication imperialism within the state should be addressed and handled."
Other Western leftist scholars argue for a multi-dimensional and comprehensive study of contemporary media imperialism. Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Tanner Mirrlees point out: "The study of 21st-century media imperialism should be a comprehensive study of 'media' within the context of old imperialism, new imperialism, and emerging imperialism." They believe the focus of research on media imperialism might include media financing, media ownership and intellectual property control, business models of media enterprises, and the organization and management of specific internationalized media products, including cross-border media production, distribution, and exhibition. Western leftist scholars note that it is worth highlighting that "the study of media imperialism should increasingly focus on the intersection of the economics of media companies and the geopolitics of the state, as well as the global coordination and conflict of propaganda campaigns and information operations."
The expansion and supplementation of the research scope of media imperialism by Western leftist scholars represent active efforts to adapt media imperialism theory to contemporary developments.
(3) Discussing the Role of Media in the Historical Stages of Capitalist Development Based on Classical Marxist Theory
Western leftist scholars have discussed whether the current stage of world historical development can be termed "media imperialism," or whether media plays a primary role in the "new imperialism" of the present stage.
Represented by Sparks, some Western leftist scholars argue that the role of media in imperialism is not decisive. In Globalization, Social Development, and the Mass Media, Sparks points out: "If we accept the traditional Marxist definition of imperialism as a policy of conquest via finance capital, how then can one speak of cultural and media imperialism?" In his view, the core of imperialism is the coercive use of economic, political, and military power to force the population of one country to accept the will of another. The meaning of media imperialism, however, is quite different. The definition of media imperialism has been ambiguous from the past to the present, and many scholars have adopted contradictory interpretations. Therefore, he believes it is necessary to avoid using the concept of media imperialism. "It is difficult to imagine any instance where cultural or media institutions alone implement the rule of one state over another. Thus, it is best to avoid using concepts like cultural or media imperialism, as they cause people to overlook the essence of the issues being explored."
Represented by Christian Fuchs, other Western leftist scholars argue that although the role of media in imperialism is not dominant, we can still discuss the imperialist nature of media within the framework of imperialism. Fuchs...
In the 2010 article "Is New Imperialism Informational Media Imperialism?", based on Lenin’s summary of the five characteristics of imperialism, [the author] explores the role of media within imperialism under the context of globalization. First, the financial sector remains the most concentrated department, while the information industry is only one of the most concentrated economic sectors. Second, while information companies hold an important position in the global capitalist economy, their significance is far less than that of the financial, oil, and gas industries. Third, although financialization, hyper-industrialization (through continuous dependence on fossil fuels and automobiles), and informatization are the three major economic trends of New Era imperialism, the dominant sector for capital export is finance rather than the information industry. Fourth, Western companies dominate the industries covering the production and dissemination of information products and services. Fifth, information warfare is an important feature of New Era imperialist wars; however, the primary nature of war is not, and never has been, purely "informational," but rather aimed at the physical elimination and defeat of the enemy. Through this five-dimensional comparative study, Fuchs argues that we cannot conclude that New Era imperialism is media imperialism or information imperialism, as this would necessarily imply that media and information are the most important features of capital concentration, capital export, world trade, and warfare today. Although media and information indeed play an important role in New Era imperialism, they do not play a dominant role. Therefore, he argues that media and information possess imperialist qualities such as centralization and transnationalization, which allows us to speak of the imperialist nature of media and information within New Era imperialism.
II. Western Leftist Scholars’ Supplement to Labor Theory in Media Imperialism Research
In traditional media studies, research on labor by Western leftist scholars was a blank space. In his 2011 article "Communication and Cultural Labor," Vincent Mosco pointed out that "labor remains a blind spot in communication and cultural studies." [11] In response, Fuchs stated in his 2014 article "Karl Marx and Media and Communication Studies Today": "A particular problem with contemporary media and communication studies is... the neglect of the labor dimension. However, in recent years, this situation has improved, and communication labor has become the subject of a large amount of critical research. To overcome the labor blind spot in media communication studies, many scholars have carried out significant work around this theme, including publishing monographs, organizing and attending conferences, etc." Among them, researchers of media imperialism theory have not been lacking in their study of labor. Western leftist scholars believe that in the digital age, "research on labor issues in media and journalism, the commodification of privacy and mass surveillance, and the unpaid labor provided by audiences for companies on digital platforms has grown significantly." Western scholars have analyzed imperialism within the international division of labor and focused on the critique of unpaid digital labor, attempting to critique it using the Marxist labor theory of value.
(1) The International Division of Labor in the Media Field in the Digital Age
Western leftist scholars have explored the forms of labor contained within the international division of labor in the media and information field under the conditions of the new information society. In "Karl Marx and Media and Communication Studies Today" (2014), Fuchs analyzes the forms of labor in the media field in the digital age, arguing that some workers are still engaged in manual labor characteristic of the early stages of industrial capitalism: "They are manufacturing and assembly workers who risk their health and lives at work... accepting highly controlled, supervised, and standardized workplaces." At the same time, new types of workers have emerged whose "primary activities are talking, persuading through emotion, typing, using phone systems, and accessing databases." Furthermore, "the international digital division of labor also involves a relatively new form of paid labor, namely high-paying, high-stress technical work." In "Digital Labor and Imperialism," published in Monthly Review in 2016, Fuchs argues that "digital labor, as the latest field of capitalist innovation and exploitation, is crucial to the structure of contemporary imperialism." Fuchs further points out examples including miners in the Congo extracting minerals for electronic components, workers in Foxconn factories, low-wage software engineers in India, high-wage but high-stress software engineers for Google and other Western companies, precarious digital freelancers in communication culture, and workers exposed to toxic substances while dismantling electronic waste. "Today, most of these digital relations of production consist of wage labor, slave labor, unpaid labor, precarious labor, and freelance labor, making the international division of labor in digital labor a vast and complex network of interconnected global exploitation." Thus, the development of digital media causes various labor forms possessing characteristics of different stages of capitalism—as well as various labor forms from both capitalist and pre-capitalist modes of production—to interact. This creates a global network of exploited labor in different forms within the media field, prompting imperialism to better utilize cheap global labor in the international division of labor to obtain high profits. Regarding this, Antonio A. Casilli argues that "the asymmetric geographical environments of these different economic sectors allow for the deployment of the main features of imperialism by creating dependence and imbalance in wealth and power between the Global North and South."
In addition, Western leftist scholars believe that because digital production lacks regulation in the current era, media imperialism has intensified the exploitation of digital labor in global value chain production. Casilli emphasizes that due to the opacity of global value extraction chains, internet-mediated production in developing and emerging countries is essentially outside of regulatory frameworks. This exacerbates digital labor's loss of bargaining power and job insecurity. Digital laborers do not know for whom they are performing digital tasks, nor does there exist a standard for evaluating digital labor’s compensation, insurance, or other benefits.
(2) The Labor Theory of Value and Unpaid Labor of Internet Users
Western scholars have also focused on whether the labor theory of value can analyze the digital labor of internet platform users. Some scholars judge that the labor theory of value is no longer applicable based on the fact that the digital labor of internet platform users is unpaid. Adam Arvidsson argues: "The labor theory of value only holds if labor has a price, provided that labor has been transformed into a commodity that can be bought and sold in some way on the market. Clearly, at this point, it is difficult to apply the labor theory of value to production practices that do not have a given price and that unfold outside of the wage relationship."
Fuchs responded to and critiqued this view that Marx’s labor theory of value cannot explain digital labor in the media field. He argues that "digital labor is not the only unpaid work in history; one can also consider domestic labor or slave labor." He critiques Arvidsson’s assumption that exploitation only exists when wages are paid, arguing that this assumption downplays the horror of exploitation and implies that classical slaves and domestic workers were not exploited: "Arvidsson’s approach implies that unpaid Congolese slave workers engaged in extracting the material basis of ICT [Information and Communications Technology] are not exploited, which is completely incorrect."
Fuchs further points out the vital distinctions and connections between traditional slaves, housewives, and corporate internet users. The first group is suppressed by physical violence; if they stop working, they are likely to be killed. The second group is coerced to an extent by physical violence and emotion. The third group faces ideological coercion; they are forced to use dominant corporate internet platforms to maintain social relations and reputation. If they stop using the platforms, they will not die or be killed, but they may become more isolated. "The value generated by these three forms of labor is all appropriated by others (slave owners, capitalists and wage-earners, companies). Their labor is unpaid. Others exploit all of their working time." Beyond this, Fuchs believes that the usage data generated by all the time social platform users spend on such platforms is recorded and analyzed to be created into data commodities, which are then sold to clients who provide targeted advertising to users. The price of the users' labor power is zero, allowing capital to maximize profits by reducing the price of labor power to a level below its value. In summary, he believes that "the multiverse of global workers is not composed of different types of work and relations of production, but of a whole composed of interdependent relations of production." The emergence of internet platform work and global workers does not mean the end of the labor theory of value, but rather the extension of exploitation from traditional sites to internet platforms. In the view of Western leftist scholars, internet platforms have made the entire world a capitalist factory, placing internet platform users worldwide in a state of exploitation.
III. New Explorations of Reform in the Media Field by Western Leftist Scholars
A crucial aspect of media imperialism theory is the discussion of what kind of change is needed and how to achieve it; that is, seeking an effective political program is the ultimate goal of media imperialism theory. Entering the era of digital capitalism, Western leftist scholars have proposed new conceptions for the future development of the media field. John Bellamy Foster pointed out that "in the past 10 years, with the rise of the global corporate media empire and the internet, radical media reform has become a major political issue in countless countries." Western leftist scholars have made new explorations into reforms in the media field. Some scholars believe we need to establish new public principles and values within internet platforms to cope with media imperialism, while others believe we need to overthrow existing capitalist media and establish alternative media.
(1) Establishing Media Public Values in the Internet
Western leftist scholars believe that currently, it is the media giants of developed countries that hold the power to formulate media public values based on commercial interests. In their view, the current global media field is already dominated by the five major US tech giants, namely Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. These foundational platforms together constitute a platform ecosystem "based on commercial values and rooted in a neoliberal worldview." Dal Yong Jin argues: "In the past 20 years, this powerful platform ecosystem has spread to the rest of the world and is dominant in Europe, most of Asia (except China), Africa, and South America." Jose van Dijck points out: "The five tech giants are increasingly becoming the gatekeepers of all online social and economic activities; their services affect the structure of society and democratic processes. In other words, they have acquired the power to set the rules." Western leftist scholars, represented by van Dijck, have offered active suggestions on how to establish and defend the public interest in internet platforms. Van Dijck believes that, in addition to protecting private information, ensuring secure and accurate internet access, and pursuing transparency in services—principles directly related to the internet as a digital environment—there is a "need to articulate public values related to broader social issues, such as democratic control of the public sphere, a level playing field for participants, anti-discrimination practices, tax and labor fairness, and accountability."
Based on this, van Dijck takes the European Union as an example to propose suggestions for establishing public values in online media from five levels. First, at the supranational level (i.e., recommendations for the EU), there must be resistance against existing power to set network rules in order to protect public values in the platform market, forming more principled guidelines regarding platform status, ownership of data flows, and government governance. Second, platform companies should incorporate public values as part of their platform architecture strategy and design. He believes that...
"The explicit articulation and endorsement of public values should not be the result of external pressure and makeshift remedies, but should be clearly integrated into platform policies and algorithmic design." Simultaneously, this requires the courage and sense of responsibility of certain entrepreneurs to promote the practice of public values. Third, regulatory bodies need to be updated and restructured. This is because current legal discourse often lacks the appropriate vocabulary to capture the techno-economic shifts of the online world. The sum of every set of laws may be insufficient to handle the entire platform ecosystem. Fourth, national governments should stimulate and promote the development of non-profit platforms and public platforms. The commercial ecosystem of platforms currently lacks public space and has few non-private competitors. National governments should invest in the public and non-profit sectors to seek a balance between the tripartite forces of the market, the state, and civil society. Fifth, academia can assist in formulating a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted agenda to design an accountable platform system, and to establish and maintain an accountable digital society to adapt to the enormous challenges we face in the eras of datafication, platformization, and digitization.
Regarding the question of who shall defend public values in a digital society, van Dijck believes it requires collective efforts from three levels: the state, the market, and civil society. "If we want the internet to remain a democratic and open space, it requires multi-layered, multi-disciplinary, and multi-stakeholder efforts from governments, companies, citizens, and researchers."
(II) Establishing true public service media requires the overthrow of capitalism through class struggle
Graham Murdock, a political economist in the field of communication, argues that the three political-economic possibilities for the media and cultural sectors are: capital ownership, state ownership, and civil society ownership. In his view, the two most important forms of social communication operating outside of capital are public service media and community media. Both operate on a non-profit basis. However, Western Lefitst scholars represented by Fuchs [4] argue that although current public service media are independent of capital and the state and tend to reject the logic of the commodity, "the reach of these platforms is low, and operating and maintaining them requires significant resources." Beyond the issue of mobilizing resources in the absence of state funding and advertising support, alternative media also face the power of media monopolies and oligopolists. The oligopolistic structure of social media has led to a situation where a few large multinational corporations control the vast majority of social media usage. Van Dijck points out: "There is a relationship of tension and contradiction between public service and community media and capitalist media. Capitalism is expansive, imperialist, and colonialist; it attempts to subsume everything under the commodity form and destroys spheres of life that do not comply with the logic of the commodity." Consequently, it is difficult for today's public service media and community media to survive within capitalism.
In Fuchs's view, what we need is not media platforms where markets and advertising exist, but a media that provides public service truly independent of the state, economic forces, and ideological forces. "We need a decolonization of the world and the internet, so that they are no longer based on bureaucratic and economic power, but more on communicative rationality [5] and the logic of the public sphere." He further points out that public service media should be socialist collective media, established for the people, with capital expropriated from owners. "In such a society, citizen groups need to have the rights as well as the technical and organizational opportunities to create their own media, which operate as collectively owned and self-managed enterprises run as non-profits in pursuit of information and educational goals."
To establish socialist public service media, media imperialism must be fundamentally overthrown. Fuchs argues that the goal of digital labor struggles should be to overthrow the capitalist organization of these fields as well as capitalist society itself. To achieve victory over capitalism, workers in media companies must engage in a united class struggle. "Socialist communication politics supports the solidarity of digital labor and media workers around the world. For this struggle to be effective, we need national and international trade unions to unite all diverse communication workers—breaking through barriers of sector, occupation, nation, company, and culture—into an alliance of communication workers." Meanwhile, because "governing the platform society is ultimately a geopolitical struggle for influence and power," Western Leftist scholars believe it is necessary to unite not only the forces within the media field but also the general global forces struggling against capital to formulate strategies of international solidarity and common struggle. Looking to the future, Western Leftist scholars predict that movements sparked by media issues will become an important part of the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movement.
IV. Conclusion
Focusing on the latest labor production modes of media imperialism and the paths to breaking them is a common concern for many contemporary Western Leftist scholars. Western Leftist scholars have recognized the fact of digital labor exploitation within the value chains of transnational media production, but currently, this remains at the surface level. They have failed to profoundly expose and critique the contemporary actions of imperialism, and thus have not reached the depth of a theoretical critique of imperialism. They have designed their own alternative plans for how to remove the media barriers of imperialism; although these plans find it difficult to escape their utopian nature, this theoretical and practical exploration possesses a certain degree of positivity and rationality. Nevertheless, the revival of the imperialism paradigm in media studies by Western Leftist scholars is an effective defense of the theory of imperialism. At the same time, the re-examination of media imperialism and the study of digital labor by Western Leftist scholars constitute an important theoretical achievement in the critique of imperialism within the media field. It provides a theoretical framework that is closer to current realities for understanding the new changes of imperialism in the contemporary media field, and to a certain extent enriches Marxist theory. Andreas Wittel argues that "in the age of digital media, Marxist theory can and should be applied to research in this field in a broader sense." There is still significant research space for media imperialism theory within academia.
(The author is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Renmin University of China) Web Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Frontiers of Foreign Social Sciences, Issue 3, 2022