CONCEPTUALISING THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN NEOINSTITUTIONAL THEORY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu12.2016.205Abstract
The article addresses the problem of implementation of free speech conditioned by expanding use of network communication technologies. The theoretical framework presented in the article may be used to analyse specific conditions of implementation and measures of support of free speech in different socio-cultural and organisational contexts. The author assumes that the existing conception of free speech, as well as approaches to its implementation and regulation are based on the model of centralised information dissemination. This model does not take into account the peculiarities of the network model of communication pertaining to the internet. Compared to mass media, the internet is embedded in different institutional frameworks and practices which make existing regulatory approaches insufficient. Neoinstitutional analysis of the social context of implementation of free speech may provide a novel theoretical understanding of the problem and outline the practical approaches necessary to solve it. Neoinstitutionalism emphasizes that behaviour regulation is a complex and diverse process. It includes not only formal rules established in the context of power inequalities, but unreflected norms and culturally inscribed frameworks of meaning as well. The latter provide alternative grounds for behaviour regulation. Thus, institutionalisation of a particular model of implementation of free speech depends not only on centralised regulation, but also on normative and cultural contexts mediating this process. Expanding internet access cannot be regarded as providing sufficient conditions for the exercise of free speech if the informal norms and cultural meanings framing this particular right are ignored. Refs 30.
Keywords:
conceptualising, freedom of speech, censorship, internet, neoinstitutionalism, institutions, regulation, public sphere
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Литература
Eko L. Many spiders, one worldwide web: Towards a typology of Internet regulation // Communication Law & Policy. 2001. Vol. 6, issue 3. P. 445–484.
Claffy K. C., Meinrath S. D., Bradner S. O. The (un)economic Internet? // Internet Computing, IEEE. 2007. Vol. 11, № 3. P. 53–58.
Palfrey J. Four phases of Internet regulation // Social Research. 2010. Vol. 77, N 3. P. 981–996.
Thornton P. H., Ocasio W. Institutional logics // The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism/ ed. by Greenwood R., Oliver C., Sahlin K., Suddaby R. London: Sage, 2008. P. 99–128.
Colby D. Conceptualizing the “digital divide”: Closing the “gap” by creating a postmodern network that distributes the productive power of speech // Communication Law & Policy. 2001. Vol. 6, issue 1. P. 123–173.
Fuchs C. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: Sage, 2014. 293 p.
DiMaggio P., Hargittai E., Neuman W. R., & Robinson J. P. Social implications of the Internet // Annual Review of Sociology. 2001. Vol. 27. P. 307–336.
Dahlberg L. Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation // New Media & Society. 2007. Vol. 9, N 5. P. 827–847.
Colleoni E., Rozza A., Arvidsson A. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data // Journal of Communication. 2014. Vol. 64, N 2. P. 317–332.
Schroeder R. Disenchantment and its discontents: Weberian perspectives on science and technology // The Sociological Review. 1995. Vol. 43, N 2. P. 227–250.
Crossley N. On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio‐analysis of publics // The Sociological Review. 2004. Vol. 52, Issue Supplement s1. P. 88–112.
Offe C. Crisis and innovation of liberal democracy: Can deliberation be institutionalised? // Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review. 2011. Vol. 47, N 3. P. 447–472.
Scott W. R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995. 178 p.
Powell W. W. The New Institutionalism. URL: http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf (дата обращения: 12.05.2016).
Phillips N., Lawrence T. B., Hardy C. Discourse and institutions // Academy of Management Review. 2004. Vol. 29, N 4. P. 635–652.
Шмерлина И. А. Понятие «социальный институт»: анализ исследовательских подходов // Социологический журнал. 2008. № 4. С. 53–69.
Gronow A. From Habits to Social Structures: Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory. New York: Peter Lang, 2011. 149 p.
Норт Д. Институты, институциональные изменения и функционирование экономики / пер. с англ. А. Н. Нестеренко; предисл. и науч. ред. Б. З. Мильнера. М.: Фонд экономической книги «Начала», 1997. 180 с.
Grafstein R. The problem of institutional constraint // The Journal of Politics. 1998. Vol. 50, N 3. P. 577–599.
Schmidt V. A. Reconciling Ideas and Institutions through Discursive Institutionalism // Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research / ed. by Béland E., Cox R. H. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 270 p.
Филлипс Л. Дж., Йоргенсен М. В. Дискурс-анализ. Теория и метод / пер. с англ. Харьков: Гуманитарный центр, 2004. 336 с.
Сергеева О. В. Свобода доступа к информации как идея изменений: опыт антропологии современного общества // Обсерватория культуры. 2007. № 5. С. 4–9.
Всеобщая декларация прав человека. URL: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/declhr.shtml (дата обращения: 12.05.2016).
Goldman A. I., Cox J. C. Speech, truth, and the free market for ideas // Legal Theory. 1996. Vol. 2, N 1. P. 1–32.
Denzau A. T., North D. C. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions // Kyklos. 1994. Vol. 47, N 1. P. 3–31.
Boyle J. Foucault in cyberspace: Surveillance, sovereignty, and hardwired censors // University of Cincinnati Law Review. 1997. Vol. 66. P. 177–205.
Баум Г. Спасти права граждан / пер. с нем. М. Голубовской. М.: «Сектор», 2015. 136 с.
Совет по правам человека ООН. Доклад Специального докладчика по вопросу о поощрении и защите права на свободу мнений и их свободное выражение Франка Ла Рю, A/HRC/17/27. 16 Мая 2011. URL: http://undocs.org/A/HRC/17/27 (дата обращения: 12.05.2016).
Bendrath R., Mueller M. The end of the net as we know it? Deep packet inspection and internet governance // New Media & Society. 2011. Vol. 13, N 7. P. 1142–1160.
Pariser E. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. 294 p.
References
Eko L. Many spiders, one worldwide web: Towards a typology of Internet regulation. Communication Law & Policy, 2001, vol. 6, issue 3, pp. 445–484.
Claffy K. C., Meinrath S. D., Bradner S. O. The (un)economic Internet? Internet Computing, IEEE, 2007, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 53–58.
Palfrey J. Four phases of Internet regulation. Social Research, 2010, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 981–996.
Thornton P. H., Ocasio W. Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. Eds R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, R. Suddaby. London, Sage Publ., 2008, pp. 99–128.
Colby D. Conceptualizing the “digital divide”: Closing the “gap” by creating a postmodern network that distributes the productive power of speech // Communication Law & Policy. 2001, vol. 6, issue 1, pp. 123–173.
Fuchs C. Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London, Sage Publ., 2014. 293 p.
DiMaggio P., Hargittai E., Neuman W. R., Robinson J. P. Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 2001, vol. 27, pp. 307–336.
Dahlberg L. Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 2007, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 827–847.
Colleoni E., Rozza A., Arvidsson A. Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 2014, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 317–332.
Schroeder R. Disenchantment and its discontents: Weberian perspectives on science and technology. The Sociological Review, 1995, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 227–250.
Crossley N. On systematically distorted communication: Bourdieu and the socio‐analysis of publics. The Sociological Review, 2004, vol. 52, issue Supplement s1, pp. 88–112.
Offe C. Crisis and innovation of liberal democracy: Can deliberation be institutionalised? Sociologický časopis [Czech Sociological Review], 2011, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 447–472.
Scott W. R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publ., 1995. 178 p.
Powell W. W. The New Institutionalism. Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/group/song/papers/NewInstitutionalism.pdf (accessed 12.05.2016).
Phillips N., Lawrence T. B., Hardy C. Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 2004, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 635–652.
Shmerlina I. A. Poniatie «sotsial’nyi institut»: analiz issledovatel’skikh podkhodov [The concept of a ‘social institution’: Analysis of research approaches]. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal [The Journal of Sociology], 2008, no. 4, pp. 53–69. (In Russian)
Gronow A. From Habits to Social Structures: Pragmatism and Contemporary Social Theory. New York, Peter Lang Publ., 2011. 149 p.
Nort D. Instituty, institutsional’nye izmeneniia i funktsionirovanie ekonomiki [Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance]. Trans. from English by A. N. Nesterenko; preface and ed. by B. Z. Mil’nera. Moscow, Fond ekonomicheskoi knigi “Nachala”, 1997. 180 p. (In Russian)
Grafstein R. The problem of institutional constraint. The Journal of Politics, 1998, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 577–599.
Schmidt V. A. Reconciling Ideas and Institutions through Discursive Institutionalism. Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research. Eds E. Béland, R. H. Cox. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. 270 p.
Fillips L. Dzh., Iorgensen M. V. Diskurs-analiz. Teoriia i metod [Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method]. Trans. from English. Khar’kov, Gumanitarnyi tsentr Publ., 2004. 336 p. (In Russian)
Sergeeva O. V. Svoboda dostupa k informatsii kak ideia izmenenii: opyt antropologii sovremennogo obshchestva [Free access to information as an idea for change: An essay on anthropological analysis of contemporary society]. Observatoriia kul’tury [Cultural observatory], 2007, no. 5, pp. 4–9.(In Russian)
Vseobshchaia deklaratsiia prav cheloveka [The Universal Declaration of Human Rights]. Available at: http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/declhr.shtml (accessed 12.05.2016). (In Russian)
Goldman A. I., Cox J. C. Speech, truth, and the free market for ideas. Legal Theory, 1996, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–32.
Denzau A. T., North D. C. Shared mental models: Ideologies and institutions. Kyklos, 1994, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 3–31.
Boyle J. Foucault in cyberspace: Surveillance, sovereignty, and hardwired censors. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 1997, vol. 66, pp. 177–205.
Baum G. Spasti prava grazhdan [Save Citizen’s Rights]. Transl. from German by M. Golebovskaya. Moscow, Sektor Publ., 2015. 136 p. (In Russian)
Sovet po pravam cheloveka OON. Doklad Spetsial’nogo dokladchika po voprosu o pooshchrenii i zashchite prava na svobodu mnenii i ikh svobodnoe vyrazhenie Franka La Riu [UN Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue], A/HRC/17/27. 16 May 2011. Available at: http://undocs.org/A/HRC/17/27 (accessed: 12.05.2016). (In Russian)
Bendrath R., Mueller M. The end of the net as we know it? Deep packet inspection and internet governance. New Media & Society, 2011, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1142–1160.
Pariser E. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York, Penguin Press, 2011. 294 p.
Downloads
Published
2016-12-27
How to Cite
Антонюк, А. М. (2016). CONCEPTUALISING THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN NEOINSTITUTIONAL THEORY. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology, (2), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu12.2016.205
Issue
Section
LANGUAGE, SOCIETY, COMMUNICATION
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
