↓ Skip to main content

Social Autonomy and Heteronomy in the Age of ICT: The Digital Pharmakon and the (Dis)Empowerment of the General Intellect

Overview of attention for article published in Foundations of Science, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Social Autonomy and Heteronomy in the Age of ICT: The Digital Pharmakon and the (Dis)Empowerment of the General Intellect
Published in
Foundations of Science, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10699-015-9468-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pieter Lemmens

Abstract

'The art of living with ICTs (information and communication technologies)' today not only means finding new ways to cope, interact and create new lifestyles on the basis of the new digital (network) technologies individually, as 'consumer-citizens'. It also means inventing new modes of living, producing and, not in the least place, struggling collectively, as workers and producers. As the so-called digital revolution unfolds in the context of a neoliberal cognitive and consumerist capitalism, its 'innovations' are predominantly employed to modulate and control both production processes and consumer behavior in view of the overall goal of extracting surplus value. Today, the digital networks overwhelmingly destroy social autonomy, instead engendering increasing social heteronomy and proletarianization. Yet it is these very networks themselves, as technical pharmaka in the sense of French 'technophilosopher' Bernard Stiegler, that can be employed as no other to struggle against this tendency. This paper briefly explores this possibility by reflecting upon current diagnoses of our 'technological situation' by some exemplary post-operaist Marxists from a Stieglerian, pharmacological perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 11 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 32%
Philosophy 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#13,384,026
of 23,680,154 outputs
Outputs from Foundations of Science
#128
of 279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,942
of 285,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Foundations of Science
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,680,154 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,135 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.