Volume 38, Issue 3 - Special Issue: Media and cultural change outside of Europe

Research on new media has always highlighted the assumption that in authoritarian contexts, communication technologies provide political activists with ampler space than available in the heavily policed physical world. However, social and political changes taking place throughout Egypt and the Arab region reflect a shift. In a country like Egypt, where only around 30 % of the population have internet access, the vibrant digital media scene is relocating itself once more in public spaces. Digital initiatives, such as Askar Kadhibun (Lying generals) and Musirrin (Steadfast), are transforming online media material into older (pre-modern) modes of traditional media, such as graffiti and traveling street performances. This constitutes a shift towards the ascendancy of popular cultural production, and a challenge to the reification and sacrilization of digital media in a context where poverty and illiteracy play a major role in both the dissemination of information and in political mobilization.

This article investigates the ‘discursive notion’ of communication technology, as embedded in the discussion of mediatization. Instead of focusing on the technical structure of media and its impact on society, I will alternatively turn my attention to its symbolic dimension. I will look beyond the surface of the symbolic, by questioning how this dimension has been discursively created. As such, I suggest using the term ‘discursive notion’, as discourse also refers to power relations. The analysis of the discursive notion relating to the internet in Morocco is developed through the critical approach of postcolonial theory. This is done with the aim of dissecting the construction of colonial discourse, and in order to show how specific power relations continue to function to present.

The following article deals with intercultural communication research as a (potential) subfield of communication studies. The broader aim is to contribute to the history as well as to the systematization of the field of intercultural communication research. The author is mapping three very different national research communities: Germany, France and the US. The main question is: Why, in each of the countries under comparison, do communication studies deal so differently with the subject of intercultural communication as a research topic and/or field? The methodology is comparative and focuses on the differences and similarities in the three national communities of communication studies and research. Both the German and the French communication researchers look closely (but again differently and completely in ignorance of each other) at US research. It appears that research traditions and general trends of mainstreaming in communication studies are highly influential as gatekeepers or barriers to intercultural communication research as a subfield of communication studies.

Theoretical concepts that explain transnational mass or social communication are rather unsophisticated. After twenty years of research on media ‘globalization’, academic thinking in this field is still vague and definitely requires more effort. One reason as to why theory is so unconvincing is that most researchers are experts for the ‘translocal’ but not for the ‘local’. Our language skills and methodologies are particularly limited when we try to understand if and how transnational media do or do not affect non-Western societies. To get out of this methodology trap we need a better integration of media studies and the so-called area studies. Currently, media and communication studies, despite all efforts, are ‘international’ only in a very limited sense. There is a dire need for better integration of Asian, African, Latin American, North African and Middle Eastern media studies into theoretical debates.