Platformized intellectual: theoretical contributions, scope and digital limits of praxis
Intelectuales en plataformas:
aportes teóricos, alcances y límites para la praxis
Letycia Gomes Nascimento
Correspondencia: letyciaanasc@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3955-5316
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil
Pablo Nabarrete Bastos
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-9107
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24265/cian.2024.n19.08
Recibido: 18/03/2024
Aceptado: 15/05/2024
Para citar
este artículo:
Gomes, L., & Nabarrete, P. (2024).
Platformized
intellectual: theoretical
contributions, scope and digital limits of praxis. Correspondencias & Análisis, (19), 196-220. https://doi.org/10.24265/cian.2024.n19.08
Abstract
Observing the transformations articulated in society, culture
and communication, with an emphasis on the expanded
use of digital platforms in the subjects’ daily lives, this
paper seeks to present central theoretical premises to categorize the notion of
platformized intellectual in
contrast with the presence of digital influencers in social media. Starting mainly from the theoretical
framework developed by Antonio Gramsci to define the intellectual
and his political praxis, we discuss the characteristics of this subject and
his field of action in a platformized society. Based
on a theoretical debate and an exploratory documentary research, we discuss the potential, limitations
and strategies of intellectual activity in a platformized
society seeing how their creations work as a form political education.
Keywords: digital platform, intellectual work, political
education, programmed content, access to information
Resumen
Observando las transformaciones articuladas en la sociedad, la cultura y la comunicación, con énfasis en el uso ampliado de las plataformas digitales en la vida cotidiana de los sujetos, este artículo
busca presentar premisas teóricas centrales para categorizar la noción de intelectual en plataforma, en
contraste con la presencia de influencers digitales en las redes
sociales. A partir del marco teórico desarrollado por Antonio Gramsci para definir
al intelectual y su praxis política, discutimos las características de este sujeto y su campo de acción en una sociedad plataformatizada. A partir de un debate teórico y una investigación documental exploratoria, discutimos el potencial, los límites y las estrategias de la actividad intelectual en una sociedad plataformatizada viendo cómo sus creaciones funcionan como forma de educación
política.
Palabras clave: plataforma digital, trabajo intelectual, educación política, contenido programado, acceso
a la información
Introduction
Communication as a space for collective and social construction and as an instance
of social and political praxis organization (Lenin,
1978; Nabarrete Bastos,
2022), is a fundamental
epistemological and political issue to understand the different experiences and practices
of transformation and struggle. The development of Web 2.0 tools added significant and problematizing elements to the field of communication, both in different
professional practices and in the political activism
made possible by the internet
and later by social media platforms (Poell et
al., 2020).
Among
the elements that emerge with these historical transformations of
communication, we highlight in our analysis the role of digital influence and
the expansion of sociability networks
constituted in connection with digital platforms. This process makes it
possible for not only authorities already consecrated in their professional fields to exert influence, but also subjects previously unknown by a large part of society. Thus, what we reflect on is more than the role of the influencer,
but the creator’s place in this equation. This is especially relevant in
the political and social transformations of contemporary society,
in situations in which this creator is
not only a creative figure in the networks, but an intellectual capable of forming
and disseminating intellectuality and
socio-historical knowledge from specific social groups, as Gramsci
(2004) proposed as the leading role of the intellectual. With the expansion
of connectivity through the web, the reach and dissemination of discourses previously
restricted to a spatiality
fixed in the territory also expanded, enabling a broader sharing
of ideas and political values,
whether progressive or not. This is not to say that every intellectual should exercise their
scientific, political or academic activity on digital platforms or specifically on social media platforms. However,
in a society immersed in the process of platformization (Poell, et al., 2020), people will inevitably
have their daily lives influenced by the mediating
logics dictated by these platforms, with their economic, political, technological and social
implications.
We
realize that the development of a platformized
society enables a space of political articulation between subjects through
collective and symbolic experiences within a wide network that involves their
peers and their digital networks of digital sociability (Martin-Barbero, 2004) in everyday
life. Considering the prominent role of the creator in the plexus of platform sociability, we seek to
understand how the intellectual, the creator and
the possibilities and barriers constituted in the processes of platformization are theoretically intertwined (Poell et al., 2020;
Nabarrete Bastos,
2022). In developing these relations of communication and human formation, we aim to
understand the potential impact of digital content creators in the dispute for
the production and dissemination of content that problematizes and shapes the
role of the platformized intellectual, based on the theoretical legacy of Antonio Gramsci (1891- 1937).
From
this perspective, we see that these subjects act mediated by platform
algorithms (Gillespie, 2018) in the thematic scheduling of daily agendas, and
thus update the social
function of the gatekeeper,
considering the possibilities and limits imposed
by algorithmic mediation to engagement (Nabarrete
Bastos, 2020, 2022). Although the thematic
scheduling and discursive circulation imposed by the logic of
platform capitalism (Srnicek, 2017; 2022) are widely more powerful than those
subjects, it seems to us that a reorganization in favor of a ranking of content that is socially
relevant from collectively organized strategies and tactics is still possible.
Although we understand that it is essential not to lose sight of the horizon
of possible construction of public and collective platforms, we recognize the limits of the
mediatized and platformized common1 (Nabarrete Bastos, 2022).
The structural path of this paper aims to build a line of reasoning that
elucidates such possibilities and limits. With that in mind, we will 1) understand the platformized intellectuality and its performance on the web; and 2)
succinctly analyze the characteristics of the governance structure
of platform capitalism, to then understand how such creators
can find gaps and possibilities for the exercise of political formation
and organization with the support
of digital platforms. Methodologically, we carried out a non-systematic bibliographic
research and exploratory documentary research based on an initial
sampling developed for broader research.
While our central
focus is the theoretical debate, we have included preliminary results of our empirical research
in order to provide greater concreteness in relation to what we are
categorizing as platformized intellectual.
By combining reflections on intellectuality, political formation (that is, the formation
of new
organic intellectuals that Gramsci proposed) and the construction of social
links around communication, we realize that it is not only the interests of
platforms that constitute social
experiences and relations, but rather the sum of these elements with other spatialized
experiences of the subject: the online and offline world, the everyday
interactions inside and outside these platforms, along with their articulation,
drive dynamics of a platformized society.
Gramsci (2004) perceives
the performance of leaders
precisely as subjects capable of carrying out a collective organization in
favor of the political direction of their peers,
being able to effectively carry out praxis for the ethical and moral formation
appropriate to the classes from which they emerged or to which they ideologically adhered. Dahlgren (2012) questions what would be
the ideal place for the development of the intellectual’s skills and abilities
in the modern world, precisely because their spaces seem increasingly restricted
either to academia, think tanks or
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). If in the first space the incessant
demand for the achievement of production metrics consumes much of their time, leaving little or no space for political praxis,
acting in think tanks implies operating in private
apparatus of hegemony subject to various questions, according to their logics
of action and sources of financing. On the other
hand, from the author’s
perspective, the performance in NGOs tends to be so praxis-oriented to the point that it limits the space for
intellectual construction (Dahlgren, 2012).
Thus,
it is necessary to reflect on the sharing of intellectuality and everyday sociability in the light of platformized
experiences, observing how information networks and their increasingly advanced
technologies modify the social world. These spaces are fundamental for the
construction of political organization in an increasingly connected society,
since it is through the circulation of capital and its symbols that capitalism
is sustained and its articulation expands between social spheres. Writing on this topic, Grohmann (2020) observes how communication can act more
than as a mere space for the circulation of capital (effective and symbolic),
but as a space for aggregation and promotion of social struggle where not only
material goods circulate as ideals, but also knowledge, information and
criticality.
In the organization of social movements, attention is understood by Tufekci (2017) as the greatest advantage
given by social networks to the struggles of popular movements. The reason
behind this is because the achievement of a certain prominence by social and political
rights organizations is significant and fundamental
for the consolidation of the dynamics of the popular struggle.
We no longer live in a mass-media world
with a few centralized choke points with just a few editors
in charge, operated
by commercial entities and governments. There is a new,
radically dif-ferent mode of information and
attention flow: the chaotic world of the digitally networked public sphere (or spheres)
where ordinary citizens or activists
can generate ideas, document, and spread news of events, and respond to mass media. This new sphere,
too, has choke points and centralization,
but dif-ferent ones than the past. (Tufekci, 2017, p. 29)
The author emphasizes that «attention is the oxygen of [social]
movements. Without it, they cannot be consummated» (Tufekci,
2017, p. 30). The Turkish sociologist’s words make clear the relevance of
digital activism movements. With the development of digital sociability networks, the monopoly of attention is not solely
possessed by traditional media. Although performance in platformized spaces and the logic of visibility are subject
to the operation of big tech companies and their marketing strategies, other
communicative possibilities emerge.
Sodré (2002) concept of mediatization supports our argument
from a critical perspective, as the author points out that the social
relationships with media and technological interfaces are mediated by neotechnology. Thus, relationships begin to
be established under
the progressive prism
of generalized communication, «in which the technological network is practically confused with the communicational process and in which the result of the
process, within the scope of the mainstream media, is the image-commodity» (Sodré, 2002, p. 19). This is not a space of exclusivity nor one where
other means and senses of communication are excluded, but one for the coexistence of technological development. The effects of instantaneous communication
provided by neotechnology are such that they reorganize social
instances, causing the relationships that coexist in this space of massive
interaction to be reconfigured in a fourth
bios, the media. Therefore, it is a relationship of dependence on the technology
that comprises it, akin to a simulacrum in which mediatization inserts the subject in the world in a new way, alongside
technocultural relationships where
the space of life is a constituent part of the media. This form of the mediatized being, however,
does not cover
the entire social field, but, as we have already emphasized, that of the hybridizing articulation of multiple institutions (relatively stable forms of
social relations committed to global human purposes) with the various media
organizations, that is, with activities governed by strict technological and
market purposes, in addition to being culturally attuned to a specific semiotic
form or code. (Sodré, 2002, p. 23)
We
agree with Grohmann (2016) that it is necessary to
build a reflection on the relevance of institutional mediatization platforms
and spaces, but in order to problematize the whole of the relationships that
develop on the side, which are the experiences of sociocultural mediations in
their synchronic and diachronic nexuses (Martín-Barbero, 2004). Thus, the processes
of mediatization and platformization shape social
experiences through their material dimensions and communicative articulations, but also pave the road through
which one can infiltrate local and cultural
experiences, everyday sociability and other possibilities of formation
and critical engagement (Nabarrete Bastos, 2020,
2022).
In a broader study under
development, which originated this paper, we analyzed the performance of the content creators
Jones Manoel, Laura Sabino and Samela
Sateré Mawé, content creator
for social media
platforms for a few months.
Working in social media platforms through the years, they have achieved thousands of monthly
views on their videos, even working on such complex and controversial
topics for the capitalist system. Our option for these intellectuals was made
in order to try to recognise the diversity among Brazilian leftist content creators: a black northeast man, a
white woman from the southeast and an indigenous woman from the Amazon.
As much as their videos represent a broad political articulation and a detailed construction
of the theories that surround their intellectual and political
formations, they do not represent the core of their leading actions, which go beyond platformized environments. Their videos spread basic notions for understanding Marxism, indigenous philosophy
and culture, ecosocialism, and class division, while sharing experiences of their political
praxis. They are precisely spaces
of disseminations, a mirror of their directing
action. Precisely for this reason we understand their position as
intellectual creators and not just
digital influencers. Of course, they also see their content creations as part of a bigger communication system where
money gets involved as their content is watched by their followers. Regardless,
their creations are not just a product, but a political exercise of collective formation and a call to political struggle.
When
we say their content isn’t just a product we do it in comparison with how the influencer
system seems to work as a space for commercial relationships mediated
by advertising. Laura Sabino is a young woman from Minas Gerais,
a history student at the Federal University of Minas
Gerais (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais). Daughter of a university
professor, Laura grew up accompanying her father to lectures
he taught in the settlements of the Landless Workers Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra). This means that knowledge about the
demands of the field has always been
part of her personal and intellectual training. For four years Laura
has kept her YouTube channel
and social networks
very active with the
objective of «taking young people
from the bosom
of neoliberalism», a concern she has seen grow with the increasing trivialization of the Brazilian Military Dictatorship.
Samela Sateré Mawé is an indigenous woman from the Amazon, part of the Sateré Mawé people. Samela is the granddaughter of Tereza and daughter of
Regina, two important leaders Sateré Mawé. Her grandmother Tereza was the founder of the Sateré-Mawé Women’s Association (Amism)
in 1992. Since then, the association has been a fundamental part of the
economic autonomy and development of the female heads of families
of the Sateré Mawé
people. After years of political
struggle in the territory and in the association, Samela
began to intentionally create content for social networks following the
Covid-19 pandemic, emerging as a creator based on the need to host the Acampamento Terra Livre online. In turn, she became
what she calls a digital warrior (Conti,
2022).
Jones Manoel, is a black
man, historian and has a master’s degree
in Social Work from Pernambuco. He used to be2
a militant affiliated
to the PCB since 2011, dedicated
to critical reflections on social construction and national politics, especially in the state of Pernambuco where he ran for State
Government in the 2022 elections. In addition, he collaborates as a columnist in some political communication vehicles in Brazil.
The examples mentioned above tell about the performance of academic and
organic intellectuals, subjects
who are formed politically from their praxis and often from their social group
of origin. What we perceive
when analysing their
trajectories is that their
intellectual development began
from their own objective and subjective
experiences. Jones, for example, in his presentation text in Carta
Capital (2020), says that he began his militant activity
at a very young age when he listened to Racionais MCs, Facção Central, Tupac Shakur, among
other politicized artists.
When he lived in the Borborema
Favela, at the age of 14, he worked selling newspapers at traffic lights in Pernambuco. Samela on the other hand sees her history and political struggle
closely connected to the tireless struggle of indigenous people for the
right to exist. Likewise, Laura understands as non-negotiable the duty to build a society and a youth grounded
in real knowledge about the world. Fundamentally, these intellectual creators find in intellectuality
answers to the concerns already recurring in their daily lives and seem to
Unify the
various types of existing cultural organizations: traditional academic –which
is expressed mainly in the systematization of past knowledge or in the search
for the fixation of an average of national thought as a guide for intellectual
activity– with activities linked to collective
life, the world of production and work. (Gramsci,
2004, p. 37)
In this way, it is implied that Jones work of collective construction in the networks
reflects his role as a platformized intellectual, particularly around his dissenting from traditional political structures in which parties
are designed. An example of this been the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB), from which Jones was expelled from the Central
Committee. This article
does not assess in detail the reasons
for his expulsion, but it should
be known that there is a conflict
between the democratic centralism typical of left-wing parties with the personalist logic and fragmentary visibility of social media
platforms. As mentioned in the public letter
released by the PCB on the occasion
of the expulsion of some of its members: «This action comes from a small militancy with little insertion of real struggle in society and
with intense engagement in social networks, often taking this space
as the privileged space of struggles» (PCB, 2023).
As we explore the amplitude of the intellectual discourse across a vast
range of political views, we justify our choice for these individuals in an
attempt to amplify leftist content creation opposition with the neoliberal
construction of the platforms itself. Related to what Ianni
(1999) says about the media system, internet space is certainly a relevant part
of society’s routines, and can, at the same time, reinforce democracy and oppression, therefore it cannot be a space
outside the lines
of dispute of democracy,
precisely because it is an important part of society and its disputes.
What we hope to demonstrate with the presentation of these cases is
precisely what differentiates a digital influencer from an intellectual
creator: while the first group can only circumscribe its actions to digital environments, the second is integrated
in several spaces
of formation, organization and political sociability, with the digital platform being a complement to
its offline activities in an attempt to mediatize and platform their ideas, reaching
other audiences. Therefore,
for Dahlgren (2012) it is
necessary to understand how these public intellectuals (PI) are
articulated in the spaces of digital
construction and consumption, precisely because
For better or
worse, one can easily pass through the boundaries separating politics,
consumption, entertainment, personal
relations, and so on with just a click. PIs can easily jump into this fray, yet their status and impact will be challenged by
the torrential cacophony of the web. How they navigate it is thus very
significant. (Dahlgren, 2012, p. 102)
Thus, much more than being on the web, what matters is how these
intellectual creators build the intellectuality and politicization of their networks.
Jeremic (2019) names these
subjects as virtual organic intellectuals,
who have symbolic and practical updates on social networks than the newspaper.
Just as the newspaper was a critical activist tool in Gramsci’s time, the digital
public sphere
is where the virtual organic intellectual can engage in a philosophy
of praxis that seeks to break the hegemony and ‘common sense’
of today which is ‘... the opposite
pole of critical thinking ...’ (Crehan, 2018, p.
278) and thus promote common sense through action-based activism and
critical digital pedagogy that is rooted in social justice. The combination of these three elements provides a digital terrain as
a springboard for today’s organic intellectual –the virtual organic intellectual–. (Jeremic, 2019, p. 111)
Jodi Dean (2005) assesses that media expansion was followed by changes in
political participation, which began to be mediated
professionally and financially by advertising and the logic of the media. In this way,
entertainment culture, based on financialization and consumption, defines the
terms of democratic governance, just as communicative exchanges have become the basic elements of capitalist production
(Nabarrete Bastos, 2022). Although we agree
with the author’s arguments, our purpose here is to discuss the place of action of the platformized intellectual, or virtual organic intellectuals (Jeremic,
2019), considering both the theoretical or formal dimensions of this process
and the praxis of intellectuals selected for analysis, their contradictions,
limits and scope in the production and circulation of critical content on
social media platforms.
Broadcast yourself: platform sharing and control
There is a wide range of political content across social media platforms, discussing
issues both
from point of view of neoliberalism and a more left leaning stance. As we said above, this paper aims to investigate how content creation
is made from the point of view of platformized intellectuality. For doing so we are collecting data from
our three selected intellectuals. For now, we will show part of the data we collected in February of 2024 posted on
X, Instagram and YouTube.
Not
all of them used social media in the same way. Jones, for example, uses it much more than Laura and Samela: in X, Jones activity exceed 700 tweets
in 29 days, while Laura posted 31 times and Samela just 6 times. In YouTube
and Instagram this disparity continues to show up: on Jones profile there were 41 videos on YouTube and 56
posts exclusively made for Instagram –there were other 42 reels from cuts of
YouTube videos–; one YouTube video
and three posts on Instagram for Laura; and just a few shorts on YouTube
and nineteen posts on Instagram
for Samela’s case.
During this time, Jones was massively invited to join livestreams of weekly political
debates on
alternative journalism platforms, and he later cut segments of these live
recordings and uploaded them to his own profiles. At the same time, he recorded
many of his videos from analyses on the Brazilian political situation in that
month and about his readings as a Phd student. His
tweets were mostly reposted from communication
groups or other
intellectuals, mostly about
Brazilian politics and the
Gaza genocide. It’s clear that their content doesn’t work in the same way,
which is the reason why we continue
to see their actions on social media as praxis intellectuals
and not as influencers that must be online to make money.
During this time Laura was involved in the MST work field and with the foundation
of a social
pre-entrance exam in her community; and Samela was
living her third pregnancy trimester at the same time she works for the Brazilian Indigenous People Articulation (Articulação dos Povos Indígenas Brasileiros) as social media and activist
mobilization for the 20th edition
of the Free Land Camp (Acampamento Terra Livre) that brings together all the 305
indigenous ethnicities that live in Brazil. This is the biggest political event
for them. In the following months Laura and Samela
were much more active on social media, coinciding with the time we decided to
choose them for our analysis. For now, we present this initial view of their content creation in order to illustrate that there are much more actions which
take place in their offline
life. As Gramsci
(2004) argues, intellectuals must dive into their work field and make
communication a part of it, but not necessarily the biggest part.
With an analysis already somewhat
dated, Dahlgren (2012)
points out with broad
enthusiasm, albeit with some caution, that digital media opened up a number of
windows for the dissemination of the ideals of public
intellectuals. Evidently, there is
a wide possibility in this area for the construction and dissemination of their beliefs without being dependent on the
literary industry or traditional media spaces, which already have their body of
invited experts.
Therefore, it is necessary to add to this equation the broad survey
carried out by Poell et al. (2020) on platform studies and their evolution towards platformization studies. The authors note that this topic
has been elaborated following a long and relatively new process, having previously permeated
the debates about the platform as hardware, later leading to
research that emphasized economic criticism and the development of platform
cultural studies. There are several possibilities and needs in this field of study. The authors believe
in the need to understand «how changes in infrastructure, market relations and
governance structures are interconnected and how they are shaped in relation to
cultural practices that are constantly changing» (Poell
et al., 2020, p. 8). Based on studies of political economy, software and business,
the authors understand platformization as «the penetration of infrastructures,
economic processes and governmental structures of platforms in different
economic sectors and spheres of life» (p. 5). On the other hand, from a
cultural studies perspective, the authors conceive platformization as the process of «reorganizing cultural practices
and imaginations around platforms» (p. 5). We consider the two approaches relevant to the understanding of the platformized
intellectual.
As
platform society is a mechanism that
penetrates the core of social relations, affecting how they develop not only in a civic dimension
but also a political one, «platforms
are an integral part of society, where conflicts of interest are constantly discussed
at various levels» (Van Dijck et al., 2018, p. 3). Thus, they define platforms as connective spaces between
users, which more than facilitating such connections, concern a connective
ecosystem that shapes organizational forms of life. Given the above, the
«platforms cannot be studied in isolation, apart from political and social
structures, they are all (inter)dependent on a global infrastructure that has
been constantly being built
since the early
2000s» (Van Dijck et al., 2018,
p. 8).
With
a complex structure, hidden and entirely bent on capitalist logic, platforms
are proven to be spaces of enormous potential for the construction of global
communication. However, it is possible to point out limits related to its
structure in the expansion of certain voices and discourses in these networks,
precisely because its spaces are organized through
datafication, commodification and selection, which are perceived by Van Dijck et al. (2018) as characteristics that shape the
structure of platforms through their
social, political and economic interests. Although we have been living with technological
access and platformized sociability networks for
decades, the spread of multiple voices remains largely unexplored, since socioeconomic
aspects directly influence access and ensure the maintenance of hegemonic power
dynamics.
Considering that the platforms are broad business structures (with
political and economic interests that develop both in the interest of their
conglomerates and in the relationships, they establish with the surrounding economy), citizen and political
communication, when produced on the platforms, faces several obstacles that are
both routine and unexpected. This scenario urges us to identify and discuss the ability
of platformized intellectuals to connect and engage
public opinion, a fundamental dimension of disputes
for hegemony (Nabarrete Bastos,
2023, 2022), realizing their ability to reflect and erupt in their audiences’ pressing
values of a democratic and fair society.
The platformized intellectual and the construction of the political subject
Observing
the Italian context at the beginning of the twentieth century, Gramsci (1982) understood
the multiple possibilities of intellectual activity, especially from the political potential of ideological and political
formation and organization, mainly among the subaltern subjects. The
role of intellectuals starts to draw Gramsci’s attention through political
issues and the place occupied by intellectuals in modern society, according to
the historical development of the State and its expansion (Nabarrete
Bastos, 2023). The hegemonic apparatus enables the conceptual link with the Integral
State (Liguori & Voza, 2014), which is the basis of Gramsci’s materialist understanding
of hegemony. According to Gramsci (2011), there is a balance between
political society (the State and its coercive apparatus) and civil society, which consist of private
apparatuses of hegemony.
Through these private organizations and their intellectuals,
in spaces such as the church, unions, schools, etc., a social group or
coalition of classes builds its hegemony over national society.
The
expansion of the State occurs in a historical process of incorporation of the
management functions and hegemony apparatuses that perform these functions, a
process characteristic of central capitalist countries, or the West, in the
Gramscian metaphor (Bianchi, 2008, p. 74-75).
The incorporation of management functions
by the State brought
the issue of intellectuals to Gramscian thought
with centrality. This discussion is articulated with the
relations between leaders and those led, dominant and dominated, in the consubstantiation of the domination of a class or fraction
of it over society (Bianchi,
2008). As Bianchi (2008) points out, the articulation of Gramscian
conceptual pairs –direction and domination, and civil society and political
society– is multidimensional, operating in unity-differentiation, and «the place occupied
by intellectuals is key to understanding this unity-differentiation, as they are the agents
of both functions» (p. 79).
In summary, seeking to bring together the Sardinian
philosopher and the Hungarian philosopher Agnes Heller, what Gramsci demonstrates is the possibility of suspending
the daily life (Heller, 2016) of subjects from intellectual activity,
social interrelationships and the collective construction of thinking and acting, in a relationship of «deep osmosis
of
intellectuals with the popular strata, recognized as active subjects imbued
with ‘creative spirit’, because it promotes the universalization of intellectuality» (Semeraro,
2009, p. 6). In a similar
sense, Heller (2016) perceives the possibility of suspension of daily
life as a possibility in the life of any individual, presenting a relationship
with Gramsci’s (2004) idea that intellectuality is present in all individuals. This is because there is a possibility of suspending alienation through scientific and political praxis. Gramsci categorizes this process as catharsis, the «passage
from the purely economic
(or selfish-passional) moment to the ethical-political moment, that is,
the superior elaboration of the structure into superstructure» (Gramsci, 1966, p. 53). For Heller (2016),
daily life is
not necessarily alienated as a consequence of its structure, but only in
certain social circumstances. At all times, there were representative personalities who lived in a non-alienated daily life; and, since the scientific structuring of
society enables the end of alienation, this possibility is open to any human
being. (p. 66)
The non-recognition of this space of collective construction of intellectuality or the (purposeful) obstruction of the possibility of intellectual development of the subalternized classes hides the perspective that all work, however practical and manual it may seem,
is imbued with intellectuality. This is why Gramsci (2004) points out the existence of a category of intellectuals in each social
group and not only in a generalist whole. The reflection
developed by him situates the function of the intellectual as existing in each social group, specialist or not, in that group in which he is inserted. Semeraro
(2009) presents the following categorization of intellectuals proposed by Gramsci:
«Urban, industrial, rural, bureaucratic,
academic, technical, professional,
small, intermediate, large, collective, democratic, etc.» (p. 3) This proposal
requires updating in light of its time, so that anachronisms do not occur in
relation to their roles and their corresponding nomenclatures. Although in Gramscian categorization we
do not have specificities regarding the forms or supports of communication of intellectual activity, in the context
of mediatization and platformization we consider it
relevant to discuss the implications of these processes for the
communication of intellectuality and the emergence of a platformized intellectual.
We believe that the process of reconstructing the figure of the
intellectual meets the emergence of digital activism. The reconfiguration of social dynamics
and spaces of collective
struggle in digital modernity has rekindled the notion that the struggle for transformation occurs uninterruptedly. In parallel with the rise of right-wing political
extremisms through the internet, there is also the growth of progressive political action
and also of Marxist and decolonial bias in social
media platforms. Although
not all of them make up our sample,
we also consider
Rita Von Hunty, Thiago
Torres, Bárbara Carine, Hyatt
Omar, Debora Baldin and Thiago Avila as examples of platformized
intellectuals of the most diverse social, political and democratic flags.
Observing the wide possibilities in the exercise of intellectuality and the prominent
place occupied
by digital influencers, we seek to develop some articulations. This is,
by definition, a person who creates content with commercial intent, «who builds
a relationship of trust, based on authenticity with his audience
(mainly on social media
platforms), and relates digitally to several
commercial actors through different business models for monetization purposes»
(Michaelsen
et al., 2022, as mentioned
in Goanta
& Bertaglia, 2023, p. 244). A market that has its
origins in the relationship of celebrities and classic socialite figures, so widely popularized in the 2000s, a movement
that comprises what Sibilia (2007) identifies as a
poignant phenomenon of web 2.0 development.
Rojek (2008) presents categories of fame that can help us
understand the point of bifurcation between
influencers, creators and even intellectuals who have become celebrities, as well as those we understand as intellectual creators and
who establish their influence from a series of heterogeneous elements
that enable the creation of their political personas. It is necessary to
consider the socioeconomic weight of the scheduling of political agendas in
society and the space granted to those who are gatekeepers of political praxis. Fame, for Rojek
(2008), in its celebrity character, is recognized from three categories: 1)
conferred; 2) acquired; and 3) attributed. The celebrity conferred refers to the connection of lineage, such as royalty;
the acquired refers to personal achievements, as in the case of sportsmen; and the attributed when knowledge about oneself is a media fabrication, without
much apparent reason. Intellectuals can fit into the logic of acquired
celebrities, but the impact of their recognition goes through the mediation of capitalist structures and platforms run by
big techs, which organize our social practices and imaginations (Poell et al., 2020). Creators
who address topics in displeasure to the platformized logic face the historical silencing of the media. Only on very rare occasions they manage to obtain the space
of celebrity intellectuals such as the philosophers Leandro Karnal and Mario Sérgio Cortella. Here we do not intend to discuss the value of the
intellectual activity of these subjects, but only verify that there
is not the same media space for more critical intellectuals, nor for Marxists
and decolonials. For this reason, many progressive and/ or Marxist
intellectuals become content
creators on their own digital
social networks. For Dahlgren
(2012), «these media-based practitioners have become increasingly important in recent decades
in the dissemination of what counts as ‘ideas’ in modern
society, even if the intellectual dimension can and should be challenged» (p. 98).
The
manifestation of socializing ideas through a creative way by the creators of
digital content who are also intellectuals in praxis is encapsulated in what we propose
as the platformized intellectual. We believe it’s possible
to find intellectuals who have consistently acted as creators in various fields. However, unlike Ortiz (2022), we realize
that the movement
from influence to intellectuality is as possible
as from intellectuality to influence. Acting as «symbolic
mediators of culture»
(Ortiz, 2022), intellectual
digital influencers can mediate across different fields of knowledge and
disseminate their arguments
in such a way that they update the role of the Gramscian
leading intellectual. This is precisely because these leaders are subjects
suspended from their daily lives and capable of disseminating political
information, generating entertainment from their languages from time to time, while also pointing to elements
of reality present in the routines of their audiences.
Both influencer and intellectual have a relevant social role when
connected and intertwined through platforms
(regardless if these are socially
mediated or political
parties in nature). After
all, there is no effectiveness in doing social, political or cultural criticism
in isolation. Just as «the work of influencers is only possible when this socio-
technical network is activated»
(Ribeiro, 2021, p. 272), intellectuals lack a relationship
network to carry out their actions. This is because the relations of
influence and leading intellectuality depend on a series of signs and factors
that are intertwined with social experiences, which allow the assimilation of
their symbolic meanings. Therefore, we reject the idea that the dissemination
of information made by influencers is only seen as a result
of intellectuality if worked in a «less
accessible» way, as Ortiz (2022) asserts. This idea of the superiority
of intellectuality distances the political discourse
of many popular social movements
and, in return, it distances itself from the essence
of the political and social
organization proposed by Gramsci.
Thus, we understand the possibility of observing platformization as a process to be disputed for political and social transformation, because, in dialogue with Heller (2016)
we believe
that «the appropriate criterion to evaluate
the existing forms
of socialism, as well as their internal
axiological relations, is not the set of social values of capitalism,
but the possibilities of value contained in socialism» (p. 27). There is
a theoretical intertwining of Gramsci’s
philosophy of praxis with the performance of platformized intellectuals and their role played within the private apparatuses of hegemony (PAH). The intellectual is that subject who, suspended
from his daily life, works for the effective suspension of his groups and through listening
translates collective desires into actions
for the transformation of the social order. Intellectuals have the potential
to modify, through critical
pedagogy and capacity for political and discursive articulation, the point of consensus
of PAH. However, we emphasize
the importance of not losing sight of the perspective that digital platforms themselves act as PAH through the monopoly of big techs hosting other private apparatuses of hegemony, which need to be subordinated
to their operating and monetization logics (Nabarrete Bastos, 2022, 2020). This shows the relevance of disputes for this
space and its transformation, in a task inseparable from intellectuality, whether platformized or not.
When reading the concept of intellectuality in Gramsci’s thought, some interpretations end up approaching the class elitism the author himself intended. What we perceive
is that intellectuality is not this thing restricted to academic groups
or to models of intelligence standardized in renowned political and social experiences, but a social formation that develops in all fields of knowledge
and experiences of cooperation and social sharing. Intellectuality is not only born in the bourgeoisie, but also expresses itself in the popular and ordinary. This is
true even when the layers of intellectuality are structured in the midst
of social and political crises
where there are only those to whom intellectuality is reduced to the forms of application originated
from the division of labor, in occupations that are sometimes
precarious; or those that develop in classes where intellectuality is applied in positions of command, either as
more qualified workers or in the possession of the means of production as a
bourgeois class. However, Gramsci’s vision, as we mentioned, is one that
observes intellectuality as a multiple space, which can be manifested from reflections that arise from
the elites’ spaces of sociability, but also from popular wisdom and the democratization of knowledge where the latter is intimately connected with the political
struggles of the ‘subalterns’ (Semeraro, 2009).
Gramsci (1982) states
that organic intellectuals are created in every social
group, having an essential
role in economic production: they provide said social group with
homogeneity and awareness of their function in the economic, social and
political field. The creation of a new intellectual conception of the world alongside its political
practice is the way to overcome the economic-corporate level and move to the level
of
the struggle for the constitution of a new hegemony. This is the Gramscian cathartic
moment, with which
platformized
intellectuals can also contribute. Communicative practice is a fundamental dimension for the exercise of intellectuality, going through
different stages of expression and discursive circulation according to the development
of information and communication
technologies: orality, writing, mechanics, electronics and digital.
In this historical context of mediatization and platformization, intellectual practice starts
to deal with the logic
of media and platforms to dialogue with society
and public opinion: the scope and limits of intellectual activity in the
context of mediatization and platformization are
updated.
Conclusions
The
structuring power of the Big Five (Van
Dijck et al., 2018) and its communicative networks
–Alphabet, Google, Amazon,
Meta, Apple, and Microsoft–
penetrate daily life and the different productive processes of political and civil society,
changing the organizational form of the extended Gramscian state. The dynamics
of platformization concerns precisely organizations that overlap and find gaps to be filled within the system itself.
As Nabarrete Bastos
(2020, 2022) argues,
digital platforms concentrate
and organize in an expanded hegemonic apparatus that encompasses the expression of all others,
the different domains
of human activity, which are subjected to their operationalization logic of
algorithmic mediation. What characterizes private apparatuses of
hegemony is their own materiality: when acting on digital platforms, other
devices, including those massively ones, are in a private space that does not
belong to them and need to be subject to its functionality, that is, to its
engagement logic.
In this paper we tried to understand and discuss the potential and limits
of PAH transformation in the action of platformized
and subalternized intellectuals in favor of modifying
the political logic of communicative praxis located in the context of platformization. Nabarrete Bastos (2020) attests that one cannot conceive the relations
of engagement «without
verifying the circulation and production of meaning beyond the
online environment, without investigating the way in which the link with
narratives and/or institutions takes place in everyday social
interactions» (p. 201-202). It is in this interpretative path that we perceive
as fundamental the praxis of platformized intellectuality, as it presents the potential for articulating the struggles inside and outside
of networks, although
it is essential to understand its limits of visibility and struggle
in the context of platformization.
The placement of socio-political content
on a platform follows the same logic of
media activism, since
they face the opposite force3 of monetization and
governance logics of digital
platforms, which reduce
the reach of these critical
contents either at the scale of content creators or in
the list of common users who expose left-wing political stances in their
profiles.
What the communicative action of platformized
intellectuals seems to try to accomplish is the motivation of practices, the
raising of ideas, the objective and subjective development of transformative and sometimes revolutionary political praxis,
which encourages careful
attention to the possibilities of organization throughout the history of the 21st century. The dimension of political
organization, the collective perspective of social struggles, is something that
distinguishes the platformized intellectual from a digital influencer with progressive political positions. Although this concept is still new and therefore
subjected to later developments, we have organized here some premises that point
towards fruitful paths for research on political communication in digital platforms
and dialogue with peers.
For Gramsci, the formation of new organic intellectuals from the popular
strata is a central practice in the struggle
for political hegemony, for the conquest of political- ideological leadership and the historical transformation and constitution of a new power
bloc. We understand
that digital influencers who work with or are engaged with popular
classes, collectives, social movements or party organizations can play
the role of intellectuals in the platformized
society: their voices have the ability to articulate worldviews, reflect
and refract the social and political struggles of contemporaneity.
That is why we are motivated to study the influencers of the progressive field,
who stand out for their visibility, the aesthetics of their productions and the depth
of their theoretical
formulations.
One
of the aspects raised by Renato Ortiz (2022) to compare digital influencers and
intellectuals is the fragmentary nature of the former in relation to the global
dimension of the latter. Influencers would be limited
to segments of social life,
such as humour, religion, music, sports, etc. In addition, there are
specificities regarding the technical support
of their discourse
(the platforms) and the entanglement between the usefulness of its content and its segmented audience, which qualifies and measures
the status of the influencer according to the metrics of the influencer’s performance. According to the author, due to the very nature
of the segmented audience of digital
platforms, influencers also formulate their content to suit the market profile
of this audience. Even if they are progressive influencers, they are subjected
to this fragmentary nature and the metrics
of the platforms, which measure
and qualify their work as influencers of a certain
audience. However, we seek to present theoretical foundations that offer a perspective of intellectuality, which we consider
elitist.
We seek to reveal through
the theoretical debate that influencers and intellectuals can merge in the context of platformization through the creative activity of platformized intellectuals. Although
this activity has limits concerning the logic of mediation of platforms, intellectual work is not restricted to platforms, just like the intellectuals of the
twentieth century who had media
visibility, yet their
activity was not restricted to said media. If intellectual activity seeks to engage civil society in a project of hegemony
or popular hegemony (Nabarrete Bastos, 2023), platformized communication of intellectual activity may have a relevant role for the visibility and
organization of political struggles. Likewise, the visibility in other
forms of media that make up the media ecosystem cannot be neglected. Depending on the community context, for example, a radio
post or a wall newspaper may have greater communicative potential than a
YouTube channel.
We can say that, for these intellectuals, social media platforms
have become more of a showcase, a way of exposing
their ideas, rather than the core of their leading actions. Therefore,
intellectual activity in contemporary times is not restricted to platforms, but
has in these spaces an important means of communication and discursive circulation of political and social struggles.
Conflict of interests
The
authors don’t have any conflict of interests in this matter, and look for the
theme only as researchers.
Ethical responsibility
The
paper was carried out following all the ethical principles in human and communication sciences. According to Resolution 510 of the National Health Council
for research in the Humanities and Social Sciences
in Brazil, this is a low-risk study as
it doesn’t compromise any information that could affect
the people involved
with the research.
Authorship contribution
LGN: hypothesis formulation, gathering investigative material, data collection and analysis, theoretical
development, and writing.
PNB: theoretical and epistemological elaboration, writing, final text review, and research supervision.
Funding
The first
author is Coordination of Superior Level
Staff Improvement scholarship holder and a visiting
researcher at the University of Westminster, also funded by the
same Coordination. The second author is Young Scientist Researcher of Our State
FAPERJ scholarship holder (JCNE-FAPERJ), period 2021-2024, and National Council
for Scientific and Technological Development scholarship holder. He is doing
a post doctorate program as a
visiting researcher in the University of Westminster.
Statement on the use of LLM (Large Language Model)
This paper has not used LLM (ChatGPT
or others) for its writing.
1
Electronic technology systems
reinterpret the organization of the human commons, with the apex of Western
rationality governed by information as an efficient operator of financial capital (Sodré, 2014). In fact, strictly
speaking, it is a contradiction in terms, as it is a common kidnapped for marketing purposes,
a common privatist, the common of interactions regulated by digital platforms, according to their materialities, affordances and symbolic resources. It is the common of technointeractions, which
are governed by the structural law of value, capital (Sodré,
2002). This engenders a new societal technology,
which engages in «another type of ethical-political hegemony» (p. 22). In this
vicarious existence, in this existential dimension, characteristic of the virtual
bios, or the media bios, according to the author,
the individual himself
is described as «an image
managed by a technological code»
and the technical device becomes
a kind of «permanent dwelling
of consciousness» (Sodré, 2014, p. 108- 115). In short, the mediatized and platformed common is hegemonically structured and shaped by capital
(Nabarrete Bastos, 2022, p. 18-19).
2
Many processes of political reorganization have taken place since the beginning of this research,
such as the expulsion of Jones and other affiliates from the PCB. In a more recent turn of events, during the editorial
process of this publication, and from the XVII (Extraordinary) Congress of the Brazilian Communist Party - Revolutionary
Reconstruction, held in June 2024, the revolutionary Leninist fraction expelled
from the PCB began to adopt the name of Brazilian Revolutionary Communist Party (PCBR).
«The
PCBR is currently the historical continuity of the PCB and understands that the
XVII (Extraordinary) Congress concluded
this week continues
the legacy of 102 years of revolutionary organization of communists in our country,
taking a new step towards
deepening the Revolutionary Reconstruction of the Brazilian Communist Party». The group,
still in the process of organization and development, is structuring its national
recruitment policy, but intends to contest seats in Brazilian
national politics.
3
At the time we were concluding this article, we became aware that YouTube
removed the channel
Brasil de Fato RS
and the podcast De Fato, important examples of
popular communication, for allegedly having «serious
or repeated violations of our spam policy, misleading practices and scams.
Therefore, we have removed your YouTube channel».
References
Bianchi, A. (2008). O laboratório de Gramsci: Filosofia, História e Política. Alameda Editorial.
Comissão Política Nacional
do Comitê Central
do PCB. (17 jul 2023). A crise do capital
e o novo liquidacionismo.
Partido Comunista
Brasileiro. https://pcb.org.br/portal2/30638
Conti, C. (2022, 12 December). Samela Sateré Mawé,
jovem ativista indígena: «Somos guerreiros digitais». Mongabay Brasil. https://brasil.mongabay.com/2022/12/samela-satere-mawe-jovem-ativista-indigena-nos-somos-guerreiros-digitais/
Dahlgren, P. (2012). Public
Intellectuals, Online Media,
and Public
Spheres: Current Realignments. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 25, 95-110.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-012-9124-5
Dean, J. (2005). Communicative
Capitalism: Circulation and the Foreclosure of Politics. Cultural Politics, 1(1), 51-74. https://doi.org/10.2752/174321905778054845
Gillespie, T. (2018). A relevância
dos algoritmos. Revista
Parágrafo, 6(1),
95-121. https://revistaseletronicas.fiamfaam.br/index.php/recicofi/article/view/722
Goanta, C., & Bertaglia, T. (2023).
Digital influencers, monetization models and platforms as transactional spaces. Brazilian Creative Industries Journal, 3(1), 242-259. https://doi.org/10.25112/bcij.v3i1.3328
Gramsci, A. (1966). Concepção dialética da história. Civilização Brasileira.
Gramsci, A. (1982). Os intelectuais e a Organização da Cultura. Civilização Brasileira.
Gramsci, A. (2004).
Cadernos do cárcere, vol. 2: Os intelectuais, o princípio educativo,jornalismo. Civilização Brasileira.
Gramsci, A. (2011). Cartas do Cárcere. Estaleiro.
Grohmann, R. (2016). As classes sociais na
comunicação: sentidos teóricos do conceito [Doctoral Thesis,
Universidade de São Paulo]. Biblioteca Digital
de Teses e Dissertações da USP. https://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/27/27152/tde-17032017-154338/es.php
Grohmann, R. (2020). A Comunicação na Circulação do Capital em Contexto de Plataformização.
Liinc em Revista, 16(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v16i1.5145
Heller, A. (2016). O Cotidiano e a História. Ed. Paz e Terra.
Ianni, O. (1999). O Príncipe Eletrônico.
Perspectivas,
22, 11-29. https://periodicos.fclar.unesp.br/perspectivas/article/view/2079
Jeremic, R. (2019). What
would Gramsci Tweet? New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 164, 109-120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20360
Jones Manoel: «Quero socializar o conhecimento sobre nomes fundamentais do pensamento crítico e da luta popular»
(2020, 5 August). Carta
Capital. https://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/quero-socializar-o-conhecimento-sobre-nomes-fundamentais-do-pensamento-
critico-e-da-luta-popular/
Lenin, V. I. (1978). Que fazer? Editora Hucitec.
Liguori, G., & Voza, P. (2014). Dicionário gramsciano. Boitempo.
Martín-Barbero, J. (2004). Ofício de Cartógrafo: Travessias latino-americanas da
comunicação na cultura. Edições Loyola.
Nabarrete Bastos, P. (2020).
Dialectics of engagement: a critical contribution to the concept.
MATRIZes, 14(1), 193-220. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1982-8160.v14i1p193-220
Nabarrete Bastos, P. (2022). Hegemonia
e engajamento em contexto de midiatização e plataformização. Liinc Em Revista, 18(2), e6066. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v18i2.6066
Nabarrete Bastos, P. (2023). Dialética da insularidade: Notas para compreensão da hegemonia popular. Compolítica, 13(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.21878/compolitica.2023.13.1.561
Ortiz, R. (2022, 4 March). À primeira
vista, os influenciadores são as celebridades de hoje. Será mesmo?
Carta Capital. https://www.cartacapital.com.br/cultura/nas-redes-sociais-a-interatividade-nao-e-suficiente/
Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & Van Dijck, J. (2020).
Plataformização. Revista Fronteiras – Estudos Midiáticos, 22(1).
Ribeiro, S. (2021).
Sobre repovoar narrativas: o trabalho dos influenciadores digitais a partir de uma abordagem sociotécnica. CIVITAS:
Revista de Ciências Sociais, 21(2),
271-272. https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7289.2021.2.39918
Rojek, C. (2008). Celebridade. Rocco.
Semeraro, G. (2009, October). Intelectuais ‘orgânicos’: Atualidade e Contraponto.
Anais Anped. http://29reuniao.anped.org.br/trabalhos/trabalho/GT17-2687—Int.pdf
Sibilia, P. (2007). O Show do Eu: Subjetividade
nos gêneros confessionais da Internet [Doctoral Thesis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro]. http://objdig.ufrj.br/30/teses/686522.pdf
Sodré, M. (2002).
Antropológica do Espelho: uma teoria da comunicação linear e em rede.
Editora Vozes.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform
Capitalism. Polity.
Srnicek, N. (2022). Valor, renda e capitalismo de plataforma. Fronteiras – Estudos Midiáticos, 24(1), 2-13. https://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/borders/article/view/24920/60749009
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest.
Yale University Press.
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World. Oxford University Press.
Letycia Gomes Nascimento
Universidad Federal Fluminense, Brazil.
Journalist from the Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil),
holds a Master’s degree and is PhD Candidate
in Media and Everyday Life at the Universidad Federal Fluminense (Brazil). She
is also a Visiting Researcher at University of Westminster, as part of her Ph.D. She researches decoloniality, intellectuality and digital influence
in favor of the ecosocialist revolution.
Corresponding author: letyciaanasc@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3955-531
Pablo Nabarrete Bastos
Universidade Federal
Fluminense, Brazil.
Associate Professor
at the Department of Social Communication and at the Programme in Media and Everyday Life of the Universidad Federal
Fluminense (Brazil). He is a visiting researcher at the University of Westminster, with a scholarship from the Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). He is also Young Scientist Researcher of Our State
(JCNE-FAPERJ) scholarship holder
by the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support
in the State of Rio de Janeiro
(FAPERJ).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5981-910
©
Los autores. Esta obra está bajo una Licencia Creative
Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC - BY
4.0).
