Article

Convergence: The International

Journal of Research into
Perspectives on the New Media Technologies
1–15
postdigital: Beyond ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:

rhetorics of progress sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1354856514567827
con.sagepub.com
and novelty

Sy Taffel
Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract
The term postdigital has in recent years been applied across a broad range of disciplines, often with
contradictory meanings. This article seeks to map the various definitions, deployments and
appropriations of the term alongside undertaking a consideration of the underlying issues that the
postdigital is argued to gesture towards. These issues, which pertain to contemporary (post)digital
technologies and their relationships to discourses and practices surrounding novelty, materiality,
embodiment, progress and the construction, comprehension, and control of contemporary urban
spaces, are considered through the rhetorics associated with the multifarious manifestations of the
postdigital and subsequently contrasted with numerous existing apertures that explore digital
technoculture, including digital humanities, software studies, digital studies (following Bernard
Stiegler) and media archaeology.

Keywords
Digital, materiality, postdigital, space, technology, virtual

Introduction
The term postdigital has in recent years been applied across a range of disciplines, with a range of
contradictory meanings ascribed to it. This article seeks to map the various definitions, deploy-
ments and appropriations of the term, alongside undertaking a consideration of the underlying
issues that the terms postdigital and postdigitality are understood to partially address, whilst
situating these debates within several strands of contemporary scholarship surrounding digital
technology and culture. Questions pertaining to the postdigital compel us to contemplate and

Corresponding author:
Sy Taffel, Massey University, School of English and Media Studies PN241, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North 4442, New
Zealand.
Email: s.a.taffel@massey.ac.nz

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

2 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

consider the ways in which the contemporary technocultural milieu affects and impacts con-
structions and perceptions of time and space, with particular reference to pre-existing discourses of
cyberspace, virtual reality and ubiquitous computing. Finally, these debates converge with dis-
courses surrounding the agencies of organized inorganic matter (Stiegler, 1998: 49) and the modes
of secondary agency (Mackenzie, 2006) specific to software-governed computational systems,
thereby relating postdigital perspectives to existing literature surrounding posthumanism
(Badmington, 2000; Braidotti, 2013; Hayles, 1999; Wolfe, 2010). Exploring the postdigital
consequently entails focusing upon ways that contemporary urban spaces not only feature
an increasing volume of interactions between humans and software but are functionally
dependent upon the existence of semi-automated systems of organized inorganic matter reso-
nating with the exposition of Code/Space presented by Rob Kitchin and Martin Dodge (2011)
which forms a productive framework with which to approach these phenomena.
In addressing these issues and questions, this article seeks to shift discourses pertaining to the
postdigital beyond defining a contentious descriptor, instead considering how questions sur-
rounding the entanglement of technology, culture and social change involve the non-linear evolu-
tionary process, which Bernard Stiegler (1998: 177) has described as epiphylogenesis:

In nonartificial life, nontechnical, nonarticulated by the différance of différance, all summation of epi-
genetic events is lost for specific memory with the loss of the individual who was their support. In the
case at hand, life conserves and accumulates these events. This conservation determines the relation to
the milieu and the whole process of selection of mutations, notably those taking place at the cortical
level. Consequently, the hypothesis can be formulated that here, in apparent contradiction of the laws
of molecular biology, epigenesis exerts a powerful countereffect on the reproduction of the species,
channelling or conditioning an essential part of the drive of selection. In this case, the individual devel-
ops out of three memories: genetic memory; memory of the central nervous system (epigenetic); and
techno-logical memory.

From this perspective, humans are effectively inseparable from their relationships with technol-
ogies, as technology forms the exteriorized, intergenerational form of memory, which is a nec-
essary precondition for the formation of culture. The impacts of evolving technologies on the
plastic structures of human neurobiological systems entail that this exterior technical milieu
impacts the development of the individual organism as well as structuring its environment, blurring
the lines between exterior and interior milieus in a manner that rebukes dualistic ontologies. A
Stieglarian position, then, contends that contrary to Donna Haraway’s (2006) famous manifesto,
we have always been cyborgs, meshworks of biology and technology. Consequently, questions
surrounding the (post)digital technologies, which are increasingly ubiquitous within urban spaces,
become pivotal to grasping contemporaneous modes of epiphylogenesis, which in turn inform
debates surrounding the contested politics of contemporary technocultural assemblages.
Structurally, this article begins by mapping the multiplicity of meanings, which have been
ascribed to the term postdigital across and within numerous distinct areas of both academic
scholarship and journalistic prose. These definitions encompass applications of the trope of
postdigitality, which refer to (1) a return of the analogue or move beyond discrete samples, (2) the
revelation of seams and artifices within the otherwise smooth spaces of the digital, (3) the historical
phase of technocultural development occurring after the digital revolution, (4) the rematerializa-
tion of digital technology and its integration into urban environments and (5) a way of escaping the
fetishization of newness and upgrade culture. Rather than seeking to uncover a singular and
‘truthful’ or ‘correct’ definition of the term, I will proceed by contrasting a range of the productive

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 3

contradictions inherent in these contemporaneous deployments, and using this material as a

departure point to further consider some of the pertinent issues raised by such discussions, con-
trasting elements of the vernacular and scholarly rhetorics surrounding the postdigital with insights
from numerous existing apertures that explore digital technoculture, including digital humanities,
software studies, digital studies (following Stiegler’s usage of the term) and media archaeology.

Mapping the term

The diverse scholarly fields in which the term postdigital has been utilized include music,
architecture, design, art, advertising, photography, e-learning, marketing, media studies and film
studies, with applications and definitions of the term being as disparate as the disciplinary areas
in which they are located. One of the earliest usages of the term postdigital is found in the work
of Robert Pepperell and Michael Punt who in 2000 co-authored a book entitled The Postdigital
Membrane: Imagination, Technology and Desire. Pepperell and Punt’s version of the postdigital
centres upon concerns that the continuum of reality is increasingly envisaged as being decompo-
sable into discrete binary units:
The term Postdigital is intended to acknowledge the current state of technology whilst rejecting the
conceptual shift implied in the ‘digital revolution’ – a shift apparently as abrupt as the ‘on/off’
‘zero/one’ logic of the machines now pervading our daily lives. (Pepperell and Punt, 2000: 2)

Whilst a general concern regarding the digital as a material instantiation of dualistic logic is
interesting, as is their explicit rejection of the notion of a digital revolution, Pepperell and Punt’s
definition of technology as ‘The tangible expression of desire motivating human imagination to
modify reality’ (2000: 7) is problematic insofar as it removes humanity and human desire from a
material situation in which technology is always and has always been embedded (Kittler, 1999;
Stiegler, 1998, 2010).
Whereas Pepperell and Punt exemplify a scholarly appropriation of the term postdigital to
gesture towards a paradigm that goes beyond the discrete samples of binary code, which
compose the digital, the term is appropriated in a homologous form within mainstream dis-
courses of technology, such as Tim Carmody’s ‘Embracing Uncertainty: Making Quantum
Computing Work’, a Wired magazine article that explores the potential of quantum com-
puting, a technology predicated upon the ability of qubits (quantum bits) to be in more than
one state at any time, allowing for parallel calculation. Going beyond discrete samples of
zeros and ones in this manner leads Carmody (2010) to conclude ‘Maybe quantum computing
will help push us into a post-digital paradigm, closer to the analogue world of our past than
the digital one we know now’.
The term postdigital is similarly mobilized in vernacular technocultural debates by James Bridle
(2010) who claims that the book is a postdigital medium, cryptically pointing towards another
version of the postdigital as a return of the analogue. Ironically, however, if we understand the term
digital to refer to discrete samples (its technical definition), then one of the book’s key innovations
over previous technologies of textual inscription such as the scroll and the mural was its digitality –
the way in which it provides discrete spatial samples (pages), which afford alternate modes of
access and indexing to reading text in a linear manner.
A clearly differentiated deployment of the term postdigital can be found within academic
literature exploring music. Here, the term postdigital has been applied by Kim Cascone (2000) to
refer to artworks which are:

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

4 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Concerned with foregrounding the flaws inherent in digital processes. This valorisation of what previ-
ously would have been seen as noise: a by-product, bearing an external relation to the work, would be
one of the characterising marks of a post-digital aesthetic.

This argument, which emanates from a rejection of what Ian Andrews (2002) claims are ‘the
familiar digital tropes of purity, pristine sound and images and perfect copies’, seems somewhat
unintuitive, given that the history of digital media production has not consisted of creating perfect
copies but of learning complex data processing workflows based on codecs (compressor/decom-
pressor algorithms) (Mackenzie, 2008), which are typically lossy processes whereby data are
encoded in a manner that enacts a compromise between size and quality. Whilst this may be
especially true of video streams, where uncompressed high-definition files are not commonly cap-
tured (outside of multimillion dollar Hollywood productions), used for editing, or delivery, this is
still frequently true within music, where the lossy MP3 file format is far more commonly encoun-
tered than lossless formats such as free lossless audio codec.
Another usage of the term postdigital arises within the field of architecture, where Neil Spiller
(2009, p. 95) argues that:

Post-digital architecture is not architecture without any digital component . . . [it is] an architecture
that is very much a synthesis between the virtual, the actual, the biological, the cyborgian, the augmen-
ted and the mixed. It is impossible, anymore, to talk of digital architecture as a binary opposition to
normal real-world architecture.

This is notable for the way in which it ascribes a well-defined periodization in which there previ-
ously existed a perceived series of dualisms between the virtual and the actual, nature (biology) and
culture (cyborgs), digital and real-world architecture, whose subsequent recombination is argued to
be the hallmark of the postdigital. Spiller’s (2009, p. 99) version of the postdigital dovetails with
aspects of posthumanism and ecologism in arguing that:

Post-digital design is relativistic, glocal, ascalar and constructed from a genius loci that does not just
include anthropomorphic site conditions but also includes deep ecological pathways, mnemonics, psy-
chogeography and narrative.

Broadly speaking this version of the postdigital can be understood as a rejection of the binary
oppositions of digital/analogue, human/nonhuman, nature/culture, and virtual/real, instead seeking to
create a discourse which composites these terms in order to consider how to collectively design
architecture which is conducive to human and nonhuman ecologies flourishing. Whilst I have
sympathy for the political connotations of such an ecologically inflected, anti-dualistic approach,
there are serious questions to be raised regarding the notion that conventional conceptions of the digi-
tal pointed towards an immaterial and virtual realm, which effectively transcends and stands opposed
to the real world. Whilst there have undoubtedly been particular narratives of digital technologies
trumpeting such claims, these have always been deeply contested, in particular, via the strands of
cybercultural studies which adopted an immanent materialism derived from the likes of Gilles
Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1977, 1987), Donna Haraway (2004) and Bruno Latour (1993, 2005).
A major strand of existing postdigital discourse originates in Nicholas Negroponte’s (1998)
Wired article ‘Beyond Digital’, in which he declares: ‘Face it – the digital revolution is over’.
Negroponte argues that there was a period from the early 1980s until the late 1990s/early 2000s,
which could be adequately described as the digital revolution and that we have now passed this
historical phase. This claim is repeated in places such as the Journal of Media Practice 2011

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 5

symposium entitled Postdigital Encounters, the Alphaville International Festival of Postdigital

Culture, and the After the Bit Rush exhibition of postdigital artworks held at the MU Artspace in
Eindhoven.
Claims for a post-revolutionary stabilization, however, appear somewhat contradicted by the
increase in networked users, devices and data. From 1998 to 2012, a period that Negroponte con-
tends to be after the digital revolution occurred, global Internet traffic grew from 12 petabytes per
month (pb/m) to over 50,000 pb/m, over 4000 times the amount of traffic. Equally, global Internet
user numbers grew from around 100 million users (2.5% of the then global population) in 1998 to
over 2.75 billion users today. A homologous explosion can be seen in the number of globally situ-
ated, network-enabled devices, which has risen from around 250 million in 1998 to over 14 billion
in 2014. The notion that there was a digital revolution and that it stopped in 1998 or 2008 appears
untenable in light of these statistics.
Alongside the expansion of networked digital technologies over this period, there has been, and
continues to be, a huge expansion of the realms of contemporary urban experiences, which are in
some way mediated by varying forms of digital technologies. Recent developments in tablets,
smartphones, wearable electronics, open-source hardware and other forms of pervasive, locative
and associated mobile computing technologies and experiences involving sensor/actuator cou-
plings, touchscreens and data harvesting algorithms hardly point towards a post-revolutionary sta-
bilization of digital technoculture. Rather than a singular and totalizing digital revolution as
posited by Negroponte, a more productive approach to such phenomena instead advocates recog-
nizing the heterogeneity of these entangled epiphylogenetic changes, positing an ongoing series of
molecular digital revolutions that continue to enact changes in heterogeneous ways across differ-
entiated geographies.
The Alphaville Festival of Postdigital Culture and the After the Bit Rush exhibition are also
noteworthy insofar as they provide numerous examples of what are demarcated as postdigital
artworks. In many ways, what is most striking about these projects is their pronounced resem-
blance to existing forms of digital art. Postdigital artworks include forms such as projection
mapping, Kinect-based installations, layered reality mobile phone apps, and mobile three-
dimensional (3D) printing installations. Where these artworks identify themselves as a departure
from digital art largely results from the ways in which they combine physical actions with digital
technologies, bridging the imagined divide between the real and virtual or presenting a remateria-
lization of digital technology.
It should, however, be noted that the ‘real’ and the ‘virtual’ have always coexisted within a
single plane of material reality, for example, games such as Dance Dance Revolution, House of
the Dead and Space Invaders may have featured less technically innovative control interfaces,
but they still involved a coupling of human and technical systems. Whilst bodies may have been
less explicitly foregrounded throughout the production processes in some digital art, there has
always been the strand exemplified by artists such as Stelarc and Sita Popat or the Japanese
anime film Tetsuo, all of which explicitly focus upon cyborgian connectivity in digital assem-
blages, an area explored by Bernd Herzogenrath (2000) in The Question Concerning Humanity:
Obsolete Bodies and (Post)Digital Flesh, another early application of the term postdigital. There
are questions then regarding how postdigital art demarcates a departure from digital art and
whether the term postdigital has any genuine analytical utility in this context beyond the post –
signifying a trend within the marketing of particular artworks designed to connote that these
works are newer than digital art and thus indescribably superior due to a general fetishism of the
new within upgrade culture.

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

6 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

A related usage of the term postdigital, which homologously brings a virtual/actual tension into
effect, is found in the work of Russell Davies (2011) who has been featured in publications such as
the Guardian newspaper as a postdigital pioneer and argues that his application of the term was
designed:

To suggest that a generation of business people and technologists should get over themselves. They
were so proud of being the people that monetised the web that they couldn’t get past it, they couldn’t
think about what was next. They thought they were the end of the revolution, they’d stormed the Winter
Palace and they were starting to tidy up. Post Digital was a suggestion that, maybe, we needed to get
over that and start thinking about the next phase, the phase where it got integrated into the world. What
will we do, I was asking, when we can take all this connectivity for granted? When it’s no longer spe-
cial or interesting? What will we build then?

The notion of being able to take a connected digital infrastructure ‘for granted’ is central to this
version of the postdigital and requires some consideration. By taking things for granted we can stop
approaching them as new, innovative and exciting and can move on to the ‘next big thing’, as
Davies suggests. However, taking things for granted seems antithetical to the notion of critical
academic analyses, which examine the ethics, politics, and agencies at work within the epiphy-
logenetic evolution of a technocultural milieu. Davies’ version of the postdigital resonates with
Negroponte’s claim that soon digital technologies will be like air and water – things that have
become invisible. Except of course that as academics examining digital culture, we have a specific
interest in understanding these technologies whether they have been taken for granted by the wider
public or not. Indeed, exploring public perceptions of relationships with technics is undoubtedly a
strand of such scholarship. Air may be taken for granted and invisible to Negroponte, but it cer-
tainly isn’t for atmospheric chemists, meteorologists or climatologists.
Another key trope within Davies’ construction of the postdigital is the notion of integrating
digital technologies into the world. However, taking this seriously means accepting the imma-
terialist rhetoric, which posits that until recently digital technology somehow existed outside of
material reality in a virtual realm. A cursory examination of contemporary spaces (Greenfield, 2006;
Kitchin and Dodge, 2011; Thrift and French, 2002; Van Kranenburg, 2008) reveals an enormous
array of digital technologies without which contemporary urban spaces would effectively fail to
function, resonating with the analyses of contemporary cities as Code/Spaces (Kitchin and Dodge
2011), but sharply diverging from the allegations of a real/virtual dualism we find in Davies’ account
and elsewhere (Heim, 1993; Holmes, 1997; Rheingold, 1991, 1993; Sable, 2012). Indeed, there has
long been a tradition of exploring human/computer interfaces and the material implications of our
specific modes of interaction with digital computers such as carpal tunnel (Keir et al., 1999) and eye
strain from display technologies (Blehm et al., 2005; Matula, 1981), clearly denoting the ways in
which human interfaces with digital technologies have never been immaterial encounters that fail to
affect human bodies (Boler, 2007; Dovey and Kennedy, 2007; Haraway, 2006; Hayles, 1999).
In discourses surrounding e-learning and education, David White (2009) has approached postdi-
gitality as a way of ‘escaping the kingdom of the new’, going beyond approaches based upon explor-
ing the newest platforms, software and trends, instead focusing upon broader sociocultural questions.
According to the 52Group’s (2009: online) ‘Preparing for the Postdigital Era’ document:

The postdigital frees us to think more clearly and precisely about the issues we face, rather than become
tied to an obsession with, and the language of, the new. It allows us to take a broader approach to the
challenges and opportunities we face. Removing the focus on the digital leads us to see the division

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 7

between the ‘digital’ have and have-nots not in terms of their lack of access to digital technology, but in
terms of their lack of access to economic, social and political power.

This version of the postdigital articulates concerns that discourses surrounding various aspects of
digital technologies and media are perpetually caught up within the ever accelerating time frame of
software and hardware development, entailing that reflexive and critical scholarship gives way to
simply keeping abreast of the latest digital trends and tools. Such research agendas based around
the economic, political and cultural potentials of new technologies and platforms become deeply
implicated within the neo-liberal consumer culture of perpetual upgrades, as opposed to the modes
of critical research traditionally associated with media and cultural studies. Seen in this light,
White’s version of the postdigital is a call to action to abandon the fetishization of the new, which
is clearly present in calls to move onto the next big thing and to instead embrace scholarship
focused upon performatively shaping social structures along more egalitarian lines.
In summary then, the term postdigital has been claimed to point towards a departure from an
understanding of the digital as novelty and also towards considering what the next big novel form
based on digital technologies might be. It has been used to suggest a move beyond technologies
built upon discrete samples and as a way of thinking about particular technologies predicated upon
discrete samples. It has been applied as a way of describing what happens when digital technology
breaks down and becomes visible, and of exploring what happens when digital technology is taken
for granted, is ubiquitous and effectively becomes invisible.
What is interesting about the conceptual contradictions and lack of clarity around the appli-
cations of the term postdigital is the way in which these incongruities might be a way of refocusing
attention onto examinations of the digital. Debates around how to define the digital were legion
when ‘new’ media were new (e.g. Aarseth, 1997, 2003; Lister, 2002; Manovich, 2000), but
questions surrounding whether we understand the digital as media built from discrete samples, or
the looser vernacular application of digital as something unspecified relating to digital computers
and/or binary code, have somewhat faded from view in contemporaneous, academic and verna-
cular commentaries, which assume digital technologies and culture as a given. This lack of focus
and specificity is something that is brought to the surface by the incoherence of contemporary
discourses around the postdigital.

Digital hypermaterialism
Having considered a range of ways that the term postdigital is currently mobilized across academic
and vernacular discourses, this article now turns towards an exploration of the underlying con-
ceptual issues that relate to the various discourses encountered thus far. Integral to these discus-
sions are the relationships between digital technologies and space and particularly the notion that
although previous digital technologies were virtual entities that inhabited cyberspace, they have
now begun to leak out into the real world. Whereas this somewhat uncritical vantage point is
adopted by numerous postdigital advocates, this article contends that engaging with a range of
positions associated with academic analyses of technology, space and culture presents productive
alternative apertures with which to apprehend the ways that digital technologies affect spatial
relationships.
Thinking about the proposed virtual/real dualism (as opposed to the Deleuzian assemblage of
virtual and actual, Deleuze and Parnet, 2002: 112–116) involves engaging with historical ideas
around virtual reality, a notion that largely came to define how people imagined the future

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

8 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

evolution of the Internet alongside tropes such as the information superhighway (Miller, 1995),
virtual communities (Rheingold, 1993, 1995; Wellman and Gulia, 1999) and cyberspace (Dodge
and Kitchin, 2000; Lessig, 1999; Lévy, 1999). Whilst these concepts, which posit that virtual
spaces are distinct and separate from ‘meatspace’, have always received a certain amount of
criticism as they remove the material connections between humans and technological interfaces
(Baym, 1998; Jones, 1995, 1998), they nonetheless maintained a position of prominence whilst the
dominant visible mode of human/computer interactions functioned at relatively fixed locations
(primarily the office or the home) with desktop or laptop computers that had to be physically wired
into networks. More recently though, as smartphones, tablets, e-readers and other mobile comput-
ing platforms have become increasingly commonplace, connectivity has become wireless and
increasingly ubiquitous via Wi-Fi, Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave AccessWiMAX,
Bluetooth and cellular 3G and 4G networks, and the integration of sensor/actuator couplings
between mobile and pervasive computing devices and environments has grown the idea that com-
putational technologies somehow exist in a separate virtual space, somehow segregated from the
rest of the material world, has gradually become less and less intellectually viable. One outcome of
this has been the emergence of relatively uncritical reflections that such developments demonstrate
a rematerialization of the (previously virtual) digital.
In contrast to discourses of immaterial labour (Berardi, 2009; Hardt and Negri, 2000, 2005;
Lazzarato, 1996), cognitive capitalism (Vercellone, 2007) and the creative class (Florida, 2012),
which collectively work to remove contemporary technological assemblages from the productive
process through their emphasis on immateriality and virtuality, Bernard Stiegler (2008: 112)
forcefully contends that such notions contribute towards a mystification of the underlying material
processes through which technocultural change occur:
In terms of everyday life, we are not a part of a dematerialization at all but rather, quite to the contrary,
a hypermaterialisation: everything is transformed into information, which is to say into states of matter
by the intermediaries of materials and apparatuses, and it is this which makes everything controllable at
the level of the nanometer and the nanosecond. This process leads to a considerable expansion of
increasingly accessible states of matter which carry form, which is henceforth able to work in the infi-
nitely small and the infinitely brief. As a result, matter is becoming invisible.

Indeed, claims pertaining to the alleged immateriality of digital technology are particularly dan-
gerous when contrasted with the range of detrimental ecological and social impacts incurred
throughout every stage of the life cycle of contemporary digital technologies (Cubitt, 2011;
Maxwell and Miller, 2012; Parikka, 2012a; Taffel 2012).
Perhaps a more productive approach towards technocultural assemblages involves consid-
ering the specific materialities mobilized in producing contemporary ensembles of networked
information and communications technology distributed throughout urban Code/Spaces (Kins-
ley, 2013). This means paying attention to specific materials – such as the important role of
coltan in the miniaturization of mobile phones, alongside exploring coltan’s role in the enduring
conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo – but also understanding the protocols, codes and
technologies that are integral to the creation of pervasive wireless networks, which enable the
Internet of Things and smart objects in everyday life, technologies and protocols such as Wi-Fi,
high-speed downlink packet access, near field communication, radio-frequency identification
and global positioning system. Such a movement, then, requires a shift from thinking about the
rematerialization of the digital to the evolution of specific materialities associated with digital
assemblages.

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 9

This shift involves considering the materiality and agencies of software – thinking about what
code is, how it is produced and what it does. These activities are central to recent developments in
the fields of software studies (Fuller, 2008; Manovich, 2008; Wardrip-Fruin, 2009) and the com-
putational turn in the digital humanities (Berry, 2011, 2012). Paying close attention to the ways in
which algorithmic manipulation, automation, numerical representation and modularity – specific
affordances arising from the material encoding of information as binary code – presents a produc-
tive method of examining how assemblages of information and communication processing hard-
ware and software, alongside humans and other agents, collaboratively produce space and culture.
However, when thinking about concepts such as algorithms, automation, numerical representation
and modularity we are firmly in the realm of the digital – indeed, many of these terms were pivotal
to early ways of understanding languages of new/digital media from the late 1990s/early 2000s
(Manovich, 2000; Lister, 2002) and these same foundations continue to underlie contemporary
digital assemblages.
Postdigitality presents one way of approaching the study of systems dependent upon digital
technologies; however, software studies present an alternative approach, which specifically
focuses upon questions relating to the materiality of code. Whilst software studies are too recent an
emerging field to be considered a stable body of work and have produced insightful and useful
material, there is currently a tendency within certain quarters to overemphasize the centrality of
software to digital assemblages. A prime example is Manovich’s (2008: 15, original emphasis)
contention that software not only adds a new dimension to our culture but that:

Our contemporary society can be characterized as a software society and our culture can be justifiably
called a software culture – because today software plays a central role in shaping both the material ele-
ments and many of the immaterial structures which together make up ‘culture’.

The danger of ascribing centrality to any feature of the massively complex globalized networks of
hardware, software, content, humans, natural resources, techniques, knowledge and legal, political
and social structures, which can be understood as comprising ‘culture’ or ‘society’, is that this
immediately relegates other nodes to the margins.
Manovich’s notion of the immaterial structures of a software society diverges sharply from
Stiegler’s more nuanced account of how specific (hyper)material technocultural formations are
prerequisites for Code/Spaces to be constructed. Stiegler’s line of argumentation here resembles
the convergent thinking found within Manuel Castells’ (1996, 2007) delineation of contemporary
societies as network societies reliant upon distributed information networks comprising assem-
blages of microelectronics, optoelectronics, software, fossil fuels and humans, alongside other
biotic structures and non-human agents. Indeed, distributed networks are topological structures
that have no centre, only nodes and connections; from this vantage point, software cannot be
described as central or as the definitive feature of these networks.
Although software does play a crucial role in contemporary societies, this role is a rela-
tional one that is entirely dependent on a series of other equally crucial areas, such as human
attention and reliable sources of electrical energy, silicon and other essential materials for
constructing digital architectures. Digital materiality includes the materiality of software but
must also go beyond code to explore the broader technocultural assemblages that software is
dependent upon.
Another series of questions raised by (post)digital discourses surround materiality and agencies
of organized inorganic matter. Approaches such as actor-–network theory (Latour, 2004, 2005;

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

10 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Law, 1998), media ecology (Fuller, 2005; Parikka, 2007; Taffel, 2013) and posthumanism
(Braidotti, 2013; Hayles, 1999) challenge the humanist/social constructivist notions that agency
exclusively resides in human subjects and is exercised over objects. Indeed, many of these
approaches expend considerable effort in reconceptualizing ways that power and agency reside in a
relational or networked capacity between the human and non-human, organic and inorganic. Soft-
ware/computational devices provide an interesting case study here due to the manner in which they
automate processes, providing what Adrian Mackenzie (2006: 8) has termed ‘secondary agency’.
Digital assemblages thus present a useful example, which not only highlights the fact that non-
human actors within these networks possess forms of agency but evidences particular ways in
which the specific agencies associated with executable code departs from alternative forms of
non-human agency.

From cyberspace to controlling Code/Spaces

Whereas the notion of cyberspace or virtual space as divorced from actual spaces can be considered
academically indefensible and functionally dead, if we approach the notion of cyberspace somewhat
differently, it can still point towards pertinent issues. The prefix cyber comes from the Greek term
kybernetes, meaning steersman. The term was appropriated in the 1940s by an interdisciplinary
group of scientists who dubbed their area of study cybernetics, which is the study of control and
communication in the animal and the machine, with steersmanship provided as an example of a
feedback-based control system. Reconceptualizing cyberspace, as a reference to controlled space or
the control of space, resonates with Gilles Deleuze’s (1992) characterization of contemporary soci-
eties as societies of control, in which the distinct spaces and subjectivities of the Foucauldian disci-
plinary society are superseded by constantly modulating, computerized spaces of control.
Control over space is exercised by hierarchical groups as evidenced by the use of tech-
nologies including closed-circuit television, mosquitoes and the drones used to conduct mod-
ern warfare (Crogan, 2013), but space can also be collectively and creatively reconfigured
by individuals and community groups using pervasive computing technologies. Open Wi-Fi
meshworks (Mackenzie, 2011), self-replicating 3D printers (Sells, 2009), peer-to-peer crypto-
currencies (Maurer et al., 2013) and open-source hardware (Bauwens, 2010; Kostakis, 2013)
present opportunities to build digital cultures outside the walled gardens of corporate capital-
ism, positing ways in which contemporary public spaces can be contested in new ways and
means by which the economy of contribution proposed by Stiegler (2010) can move beyond
the realms of information and software and into building ethically orientated technocultural
environments.
Additionally, there are questions relating to infrastructure and control pertaining to data ethics and
privacy issues as highlighted by the revelations over the governmental surveillance schemes exposed
by Edward Snowden in 2013. Questions of who holds your data when it is stored in the cloud and
what they do with it – be it exploitation for commercial purposes, or turning data over to governments
without notifying users – alongside enduring issues surrounding governmental and national security
agency-related data access are of huge importance when considering the ethical and political impli-
cations of the contestation over control of contemporary computational assemblages.
Control over Code/Spaces then becomes a terrain of struggle between various actors, which
presents an avenue for further investigation. Thus far many of the approaches to these areas ori-
ginate from cultural geography and ubicomp/human–computer interaction (HCI) and present
material in ways that are quite different to the types of analysis traditionally carried out within

10

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 11

media and cultural studies – there has been description and theorization, but little in the way of
detailed qualitative or ethnographic analyses are user centric – exploring the ways that people
experience and understand these contemporary spaces.

Back to the digital future

Whilst postdigitality, software studies, cultural geography and HCI present particular apertures onto
contemporaneous technocultural milieus, an additional suite of approaches that provide useful ways
of approaching these issues are associated with the digital humanities, digital studies and media
archaeology. By means of a conclusion, I wish to consider the utility these methods present in order
to further highlight some of the conceptual issues present within the often uncritical celebration of
digital technology, which dominate vernacular conceptions of the postdigital.
Digital humanities is a field that has undergone several iterations, having initially revolved
around the large-scale digitization of existing resources, a second wave of scholarship centred
upon creating and adopting new tools and technologies designed to present new ways of conduct-
ing humanities research in ways that were not previously possible. David Berry (2011, 2012) has
recently outlined an emerging third wave of digital humanities, which he terms the computational
turn and which reflexively focuses upon code, software, digitality and materiality. What is note-
worthy here is the manner in which a research field evolves, from initially focusing on the newness
of digital technologies and the process of becoming digital to a more nuanced and reflexive
engagement with issues raised by digital technoculture, raising questions around computation,
code, automation and the new types of materiality, methodologies and epistemologies that arise
from living within this technocultural milieu.
Whilst digital humanities research presents significant areas of overlap with postdigital
approaches, much of the focus within digital humanities research is upon creating and/or utilizing
software to conduct new forms of research, many of which implement ways of conducting
quantitative research in areas where previously only qualitative research was possible. The aim of
making social science research a real quantitative science has been a long unrealized aim for a
particular fragment of the field, however, reducing the richness and diversity of cultural activity to
data sets stands in opposition to microethological, ethnographic and other qualitative approaches.
That is not to suggest that cultural analytics fail to present productive or meaningful methods and
results, only that the methodological approach and the types of insight they consequently present
tend to substantially depart from those historically associated with media and cultural studies.
Digital studies is the term adopted by Bernard Stiegler and Ars Industrialis to describe their
interest in and engagement with the ways in which networked digital technologies are changing
multifarious facets of contemporary society, as exemplified by Stiegler’s (2012) insistence that
digital studies must become ‘the new unifying and transdisciplinary model of every form of
academic knowledge’. Stiegler’s positions around the hypermateriality of digital technologies and
the need for sustained engagements with their transformative epiphylogenetic impacts on human
attention and technosocial structures of care resonate with some of the thematics of the postdigital,
but with an emphasis that what is in fact at stake here are the affordances of digital technologies
and digital cultures. Whereas the term postdigital points towards an after-the-digital – whether that
is understood as an after-the-digital revolution as in Negroponte and Davies’ versions, or after digi-
tality as in quantum computing or a return to the analogue – digital studies posit that we are only
just entering the digital age and that whilst there will continue to be rapid changes to various ele-
ments of our technocultural infrastructure, processes aligned with the digital – the application of

11

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

12 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

discrete units, frequently realized as binary code, within an expanding range of microelectronics
devices – will continue to be pivotal to comprehending the specific affordances, techniques and
potentialities for positive social and ecological ethico-political actions.
A final area of contemporary research that presents an interesting avenue for discussion
regarding the issues arising from the concepts mobilized surrounding the concept of the postdigital
is media archaeology. Whereas postdigital discourse presents a teleological perspective whereby
media progress from pre- to postdigitality, from analogue technologies to digital ones, from
mainframe computers to smartphones and from virtual spaces to layered realities, media archae-
ology presents an alternative perspective that foregrounds ‘a way of studying recurring cyclical
phenomena that (re)appear and disappear and reappear over and over again in media history,
somehow seeming to transcend specific historical contexts’ (Huhtamo, 2011: 64).
Whereas it can be all-too-easy to portray contemporary technics as the obvious and sole result of
a singular historical evolution, which culminates in a celebration of upgrade culture and the new,
media archaeology instead argues for understanding media evolution as a process whereby past
technologies that had been presumed obsolete or ‘dead’ are reintegrated into new media practices
and tools. The focus here on logics of circularity, multiplicity and the connections between media
theory and new materialism (Coole and Frost, 2010; Parikka, 2012b) presents a productive coun-
terpoint to utopian celebrations of technological progress and upgrade culture.
In summary then, whilst the contradictions inherent in contemporary discourses surrounding the
postdigital render the term itself of little critical value, particular tropes and figures it alludes to
articulate numerous issues are pivotal to comprehending the contemporary digital landscape. This
includes the relations between technology and space, and, in particular, the ways that automated
systems of organized inorganic matter are transforming urban spaces. Closely related to such
changes are the range of political and ethical problematics that arise around issues surrounding the
contestation of control over largely automated systems of surveillance and control within globa-
lized network cultures. Central to such issues are questions pertaining to the materiality of software
and how we situate the specific affordances of software within wider technocultural assemblages
of production, consumption and access. Additionally, the postdigital raises questions surrounding a
desire to move beyond discourses limited to newness within technological fields, where the rapid
pace of upgrade culture itself poses challenges to the formation of reflexive analytic frameworks
capable of adapting to the rate of dynamism present in contemporary technological changes. The
importance of engaging with debates pertaining to the postdigital, then, largely emanates from the
ways that the incoherence and lack of conceptual clarity present in the multiple discourses sur-
rounding the term, which are frequently predicated upon a highly problematic dualistic onto-
epistemology and foregrounds the necessity of refocusing attention upon questions surrounding
contemporary modes of epiphylogenesis via the proliferation of digital technics.

Acknowledgements
The material contained within this article is based upon work conducted as a research associate for
the Digital Cultures Research Centre at the University of the West of England, Bristol. I would like
to thank the staff there for their valuable feedback and input, which helped shape the project.

References
Aarseth EJ (1997) Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aarseth EJ (2003) We all want to change the world: the ideology of innovation in digital media. In: Liestøl G,
Morrison A, and Rasmussen T (eds) Digital Media Revisited. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 415–439.

12

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 13

Andrews I (2002) Post-digital aesthetics and the return to modernism. Available at: http://www.ian-andrews.
org/texts/postdig.html (accessed 13 August 2013).
Badmington N (ed) (2000) Posthumanism. Houndmills, Basingstoke/Hampshire/New York: Palgrave.
Bauwens M (2010) Is there something like a peer-to-peer science? Jcom 9: 1.
Baym NK (1998) The emergence of on-line community. Cybersociety 2: 35–68.
Berardi F (2009) Precarious Rhapsody. London: Minor Compositions.
Berry D (2011) The computational turn: thinking about the digital humanities. Culture Machine 12: 1–22.
Berry D (2012) Understanding Digital Humanities. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blehm C, Vishnu S, Khattak A, et al. (2005) Computer vision syndrome: a review. Survey of Opthalmology
50: 253–262.
Boler M (2007) Hypes, hopes and actualities: new digital Cartesianism and bodies in cyberspace. New Media
& Society 9: 139–168.
Braidotti R (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge: Polity.
Bridle J (2010) Web Directions South 2010 Interview. Available at: http://www.webdirections.org/blog/
james-bridle-web-directions-south-2010-interview/ (accessed 13 August 2013).
Carmody T (2010) Embracing uncertainty: making quantum computing work. Wired. Available at: http://
www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/11/embracing-uncertainty-how-to-make-quantum-computing-work/
(accessed 13 August 2013).
Cascone K (2000) The aesthetics of failure: ‘post-digital’ tendencies in contemporary computer music. Com-
puter Music Journal 24: 4.
Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, Volume I of The Information Age: Economy, Society and
Culture. Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Castells M (2007) Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of
Communication 1: 238–266.
Coole D and Frost S (2010) (eds) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. London: Duke Univer-
sity Press.
Crogan P (2013) Drones, Sport and Eventization. Technophilia. Available at: http://technophilia.wordpress.
com/2013/09/17/drones-sport-and-eventization/ (accessed 13 August 2013).
Cubitt S (2011) The latent image. International Journal of the Image 1: 27–38.
Davies R (2011) Again With the Post Digital. Available at: http://russelldavies.typepad.com/planning/
2011/11/i-first-talked-about-post-digital-at-an-event-called-thinking-digital-in-2009-in-gateshead-looking-
back-thats-probably-wh.html (accessed 13 August 2013).
Deleuze G (1992) Postscript on the societies of control. October 59: 3–7.
Deleuze G and Guattari F (1977) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. New York: Viking Press.
Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: Univer-
sity of Minnesota Press.
Deleuze G and Parnet C (2002) Dialogues II. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dodge M and Kitchin R (2000) Mapping Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
Dovey J and Kennedy HW (2007) From margin to center: biographies of technicity and the construction of
hegemonic games culture. The Players’ Realm 131–153.
Florida RL (2012) The Rise of the Creative Class: Revisited. New York: Basic books.
Fuller M (2005) Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Fuller M (2008) Software Studies: A Lexicon. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Greenfield A (2006) Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley: New Riders.
Haraway D (2004) The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge.
Haraway D (2006) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late 20th century.
In: Weiss J, Nolan J, Hunsinger J and Trifonas P (eds) The International Handbook of Virtual Learning
Environments. Dordrecht: Springer, pp 117–158.
Hardt M. and Negri A. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

13

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

14 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies

Hardt M and Negri A (2005) Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin.
Hayles NK (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heim M (1993) The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herzogenrath B (2000) The question concerning humanity: obsolete bodies and (post)digital flesh. Encultura-
tion 3. Available at: http://enculturation.gmu.edu/3_1/herzogenrath/. (accessed 12 August 2013)
Holmes D (1997) Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huhtamo E (2011) From kaliedoscomatic to cybernerd: notes towards an archeology of the media. In: Giddings
S and Lister M (eds) The New Media and Technocultures Reader. Oxford/New York: Routledge, pp. 62–69.
Jones S (1995) Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Jones S (1998) Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Community and Technology. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Keir PJ, Bach JM, and Rempel D (1999) Effects of computer mouse design and task on carpal tunnel pressure.
Ergonomics 42: 1350–160.
Kinsley S (2013) The matter of ‘virtual’ geographies. Progress in Human Geography. Available at: http://
phg.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/16/0309132513506270 (accessed 20 November 2013).
Kitchin R and Dodge M (2011) Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kittler FA (1999) Gramophone, Film, Typewriter. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kostakis V (2013) At the turning point of the current techno-economic paradigm: commons-based peer
production, desktop manufacturing and the role of civil society in the perezian framework. Triple C:
Communication, Capitalism & Critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information
Society 11: 173–190.
Latour B (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Latour B (2004) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Law J (1998) After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. The Sociological Review 46: 1–14.
Lazzarato M (1996) Immaterial labour. In: Hardt M and Virno P (ed) Radical Thought in Italy: A Potential
Politics, pp. 133–147.
Lessig L (1999) Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
Lévy P (1999) Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Perseus
Publishing.
Lister M (2002) New Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.
Mackenzie A (2006) Cutting Code: Software and Sociality. New York: Peter Lang.
Mackenzie A (2008) Codec. In: Fuller M (ed) Software Studies: A Lexicon. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Mackenzie A (2011) Wirelessness: Radical Empiricism in Network Cultures. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Manovich L (2000) The Language of New Media. Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Manovich L (2008) Software Takes Command. Available at: http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2008/11/soft-
book.html (accessed 12 August 2013).
Matula RA (1981) Effects of visual display units on the eyes: a bibliography (1972–1980). The Journal of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 23: 581–586.
Maurer B, Nelms TC, and Swartz L (2013) When perhaps the real problem is money itself!: the practical
materiality of Bitcoin. Social Semiotics 23: 261–277.
Maxwell R and Miller T (2012) Greening the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller SE (1995) Civilizing Cyberspace: Policy, Power, and the Information Superhighway. New York: ACM
Press/Addison-Wesley.
Negroponte N (1998) Beyond digital. Wired. Available at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.12/negro-
ponte.html (accessed 13 August 2013).
Parikka J (2007) Digital Contagions: A Media Archaeology of Computer Viruses. New York: Peter Lang.

14

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016

Taffel 15

Parikka J (2012a) New materialism as media theory: medianatures and dirty matter. Communication and Crit-
ical/Cultural Studies 9: 95–100.
Parikka J (2012b) What is Media Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity.
Pepperell R and Punt M (2000) The Postdigital Membrane: Imagination, Technology and Desire. Bristol:
Intellect.
Rheingold H (1991) Virtual Reality. New York: Summit Books.
Rheingold H (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Rheingold H (1995) The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. London: Minerva.
Sable D (2012) A Post-Digital World, Really? The rundown. Available at: www.google.com/think/articles/a-
post-digital-world-really.html (accessed 15 August 2013).
Sells EA (2009) Towards a Self-Manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Machine. Bath: University of Bath.
Spiller N (2009) Plectic architecture: towards a theory of the post-digital in architecture. Technoetic Arts: A
Journal of Speculative Research 7. Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/ta/
2009/00000007/00000002/art00004 (accessed 12 August 2013).
Stiegler B (1998) Technics and Time Volume 1: The Fault of Epimetheus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Stiegler B, Petit P, and Bontems V (2008) Economie de l HypermatO˜riel et Psychopouvoir: Entretiens avec
Philippe Petit et Vincent Bontems. Paris: Mille et Une Nuits.
Stiegler B (2010) For a New Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge Malden: Polity.
Stiegler B (2012) Die aufklarung in the age of philosophical engineering. Computational Culture. Available at:
http://computationalculture.net/comment/die-aufklarung-in-the-age-of-philosophical-engineering. (accessed
12 August 2013)
Taffel S (2012) Escaping attention: digital media hardware, materiality and ecological cost. Culture Machine 13.
Available at: http://culturemachine.net/index.php/cm/article/download/468/487 (accessed 12 August 2013).
Taffel S (2013) Scalar entanglement in digital media ecologies. Necsus European Journal of Media Studies
Spring 2013.
Thrift N and French S (2002) The automatic production of space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geo-
graphers 27: 309–335.
Van Kranenburg R (2008) The Internet of Things: A Critique of Ambient Technology and the All Seeing
Network of RFID. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Vercellone C (2007) From formal subsumption to general intellect: elements for a Marxist reading of the the-
sis of cognitive capitalism. Historical Materialism 15: 13.
Wardrip-Fruin N (2009) Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies.
Cambridge/London: The MIT Press.
Wellman B and Gulia M (1999) Net surfers don’t ride alone: virtual communities as communities. Networks
in the Global Village: 331–366.
White D (2009) Postdigital: Escaping the Kingdom of the New. Tall blog. Available at: http://tallblog.conted.ox.
ac.uk/index.php/2009/06/19/postdigital-escaping-the-kingdom-of-the-new/ (accessed 12 August 2013).
Wolfe C (2010) What is Posthumanism? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
52Group (2009) Preparing for the postdigital era. Available at: https://docs.google.com/document/preview?
id¼1TkCUCisefPgrcG317_hZa4PwZoQ8m7rL5AJF6PazHHQ&pli¼1 (accessed 12 August 2013).

Author biography
Sy Taffel is currently a lecturer in media studies at Massey University, Aotearoa New Zealand. His research
interests include political ecologies of digital media, digital media and political activism, pervasive/locative
media, software studies, peer-to-peer production, digital aesthetics and documentary film. In 2013, Sy com-
pleted his PhD at the University of Bristol, United Kingdom, exploring political, ethical and agential facets of
digital media ecologies. He has also worked as a film-maker and photographer and has been involved with
media activist projects including Indymedia, Climate Camp and Hacktionlab.

15

Downloaded from con.sagepub.com at UNIV OF TENNESSEE on January 22, 2016