The Power of Large-Scale Interactions Through Information Technologies and Changes in Cultural Identity Politics

  • J. P. SinghEmail author
Part of the Global Power Shift book series (GLOBAL)


Large-scale and dense communicative interactions among multiple actors are creating new and shared understandings in global politics that require re-conceptualizing power. The existing ‘instrumental’ conceptions of power explain the constraining or expanding influence of technologies on global actors, but underestimate the role of communication in these politics. However, information and communication technologies are both products of human agency to communicate and, in turn, intensify these communications. The current debates on cultural identity are taken as an exemplar of the new meanings that arise in global politics as a result of the intense and large-scale communicative interactions. National identity is not replaced but supplemented with other forms of cultural identity in a networked world. The concept of meta-power captures the emergence of these new meanings that information and communication technologies facilitate.


Power Meta-power Communication Transformation Interactivity Cultural identity Global actors 


  1. Addley, E. (2011, October 11). Occupy movement: From local action to a global howl of protest. The Guardian. Accessed May 17, 2013.
  2. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, T., Buckley, W., & Burns, T. R. (1975). Relational control: The human structuring of cooperation and conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19, 419–440.Google Scholar
  5. Benhabib, S. (2004). The right of others: Aliens, residents and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burns, T. R., & Hall, P. (Eds.). (2013). The meta-power paradigm: Impacts and transformations of agents, institutions, and social systems. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2000). International systems in world history: Remaking the study of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity: The information age – economy, society and culture (Vol. II). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Centola, D., Gonzalez-Avella, J. C., Eguiluz, V. M., & Miguel, M. S. (2007). Homophily, cultural-drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(6), 905–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CheckFacebook. (2013). Home. Accessed May 17, 2013.
  12. Choucri, N. (2012). Cyberpolitics in international relations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cull, N. J. (2013). The long road to public diplomacy 2.0: The Internet in U.S. public diplomacy. International Studies Review, 15(1), 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deibert, R. J., Palfrey, J. G., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. (Eds.). (2008). Access denied: The practice and policy of global internet filtering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Der Derian, J. (1990). The (s)pace of international relations: Simulation, surveillance, and speed. International Studies Quarterly, 44, 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drezner, D. (2007). All politics is global: Explaining international regulatory regimes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the internet age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eriksson, J., & Giacomello, G. (2009). Who controls the internet: Behind the obstinacy or obsolescence of the state. International Studies Review, 11, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalization and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farrell, H. (2012). The consequences of the internet for politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fritsch, S. (2014). Conceptualizing the ambivalent role of technology in international relations: Between systemic change and continuity. In: Mayer M, Carpes M, Knoblich R (Eds.), The global politics of science and technology (Vol. 1, Concepts from international relations and other disciplines). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Fung, A., Gilman, H. R., & Shkabatur, J. (2013). Six models for the internet + politics. International Studies Review, 15, 30–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gil-Garcia, R. J. (2012). Enacting electronic government success: An integrative study of government-wide websites, organizational capabilities, and institutions. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goff, P. M. (2007). Limits to liberalization: Local culture in global marketplace. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the internet? Illusions of a borderless world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Grewal, D. S. (2008). Network power: The social dynamics of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hughes, T. P. (2012). The evolution of large technical systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological system: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 45–76). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Innis, H. (1950). Empire and communications. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Karpf, D. (2012). The MoveOn effect: The unexpected transformation of American political advocacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kollman, K. (2007). Same-sex unions: The globalization of an idea. International Studies Quarterly, 51(2), 329–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krasner, S. (1985). Structural conflict: The third world against global liberalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. Laclau, E. (1995). Universalism, particularism, and the question of identity. In J. Rajchman (Ed.), The identity in question (pp. 93–108). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Livingston, S., & Walter-Drop, G. (Eds.). (2014). Information and communication technology in areas of limited statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. McLuhan, M. (1964/1997). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  39. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. E. (2012). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 11–44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rockhill, G., & Gomez-Muller, A. (2011). Politics of culture and the spirit of critique. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rosenau, J. N., & Singh, J. P. (2002). Information technologies and global politics: The changing scope of power and governance. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  43. Sandy, K. Z. (2010). Muslims, identity and multimodal communication. Contemporary Islam, 4, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sell, S. K. (2013). Revenge of the “Nerds”: Collective action against intellectual property maximalism in the global information age. International Studies Review, 15(1), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  46. Singh, J. P. (2008). Agents of policy learning and change: US and EU perspectives on cultural policy. Journal of Arts Management, Law, Society, 38(2), 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh, J. P. (2011). Globalized arts: The entertainment economy and cultural identity. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Singh, J. P. (2013a). Information technologies, meta-power, and transformations in global politics. International Studies Review, 15, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singh, J. P. (2013b). Development remix: Representing poverty, culture, and agency in the developing world. International Studies Perspectives. doi: 10.1111/insp.12023 doi: 10.1111/insp.12023#Link to external resource:  10.1111/insp.12023.
  50. Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Statistic Brain. (2013). Twitter statistics. Accessed May 17, 2013.
  52. Sylvester, C. (2009). Art/museums: International relations where we least expect it. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Voon, T. (2007). Cultural products and the World Trade Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wikipedia. (2013). SinaWeibo. Accessed September 20, 2013.
  55. World Tourism Organization. (2012). UNWTO tourism highlights. Accessed May 17, 2013.
  56. Wullschlager, J. (2013). A Picasso for the Facebook age: At Venice Biennale, most national pavilions pale before the energetic vision of the compelling international exhibition. Financial Times. Accessed June 4, 2013.
  57. YouTube. (2013). Statistics. Accessed May 17, 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations