A Different Kind of Society

  • Giovanni Navarria


Schudson’s monitorial citizen is no longer viable as the key descriptor of citizens’ engagement in the twenty-first century because, this chapter argues, it is principally the product of a world structured according to the logic of the nation state. Though borders and states are still crucial, the chapter suggests, networks have become a central feature of everyday life. This shift has impacted the way in which citizens engage in politics. We have moved away from a society predominantly inhabited by monitorial citizens to one in which the key quality of politically active citizens is to be networked.


  1. Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of the Network Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. ——–. 2001. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business, and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2004a. “Globalization and Identity in the Network Society: A Rejoinder to Calhoun, Lyon and Touraine.” In Manuel Castells, edited by Frank Webster and Basil Dimitriou, 2, 135–51. Sage Masters of Modern Social Thought. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 2004b. “Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint.” In The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Manuel Castells, 3–43. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  5. ———, ed. 2004c. The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
  7. Chadwick, Andrew. 2006. Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Deibert, Ronald. 2000. Parchment, Printing, and Hypermedia: Communication and World Order Transformation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. 1980. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gates, Bill, Nathan Myhrvold, and Peter Rinearson. 1995. The Road Ahead. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  11. Innis, Harold Adams. 1951. The Bias of Communication. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  12. Keane, John. 1999. “Public Life in the Era of Communicative Abundance.” Canadian Journal of Communication 24 (2).
  13. Les Solomon. 1984. “Solomon’s Memory.” InfoWorld, October 15.Google Scholar
  14. McLuhan, Marshall. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 1997. “The Playboy Interview.” In Essential McLuhan, edited by Eric McLuhan and Frank Zingrone, 222–60. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2001. Understanding Media. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Mims, Forrest M. 1985. “The Tenth Anniversary of the Altair 8800.” Computers & Electronics, January.Google Scholar
  18. Popper, Karl Raimund. 1966. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Watts, Duncan J., and Steven H. Strogatz. 1998. “Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks.” Nature 393 (6684): 440–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Navarria
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ExeterExeterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations