Firth Media

Google Earth and Network Societies

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth.

The following article investigates the media text ‘Google Earth’ and its functional alignment with influencing network societies. An analysis of how Google Earth intersects with media theory and cultural production will be articulated. The impact of Google Earth over notions of network society, along with focusing on its further implications for cultural production will be outlined. Furthermore, a descriptive account of key influential factors involved will be expressed; technological realities, informationalism, globalisation, social and cultural influence, and notions of social connectedness, will all be investigated as a contributing counterpart to the broader framework of network societies and cultural production.

“More than any other new media technology, the internet has represented the idea of change and newness within contemporary culture. A whole vernacular has developed from its myriad forms that underline its pervasive influence and its normalisation in our lives” (Marshall, 2004:45).

Google Earth as a media text is an example of a collective array of networks of human society, presenting a notion of the interrelationships of globalised and localised societies. The text presents realities of globalisation and how they are presented within the networked societies of the world. Google Earth arguably presents its self as an influential proponent of forging the development of network society, through means of information channels that are supplied through the websites domain.

The website presents a geographic mapping system that visually references the cities of the world through the use of satellite imagery. Google Earth allows users to select any location on the globe and focus on it, the user is able to view locations at different magnitudes of focus. For example, if the user wishes to focus on New York City, they may choose a close up view of Manhattan Island or wide shot of the greater New York area. Combined with the visual mapping functions of the web site are directory services, such as street names, national heritage sites, regional parks, restaurants, hotels, and a multitude of other directory listing services. Also Google Earth provides a social commentary forum where users can comment on the web program.

As a media text Google Earth acts as a facilitator and example of global convergence that is highly influential over network societies in a global context. (Castells, 1998). Schirato and Webb (2003:217) define global convergence as, “The tendency, facilitated by communication technologies, to bring together different communities, institutions, media.” Google Earth is indeed a proponent of this on several levels. Firstly, Google Earths central function is localising global information to vast social groups of the world (obviously those with internet access), through the website’s collective grouping of these many geographic locations of the world an overall montage of togetherness is presented, which ultimately seems to be symbolic of relationships of connectedness. This can be directly related to illuminating the world as a ‘global village’ (Keesing, 1996), in turn demonstrating the notion of interconnected societies under the umbrella of globalisation. Google Earth appears to have the functional aspect of being a symbolic creationist of networked societies, because it provides a service of technological informationalism that allows different social groups of the world to access information collectively, thus forging a network of shared information on a globally social scale. (Garson, 2000).

Google earth negotiates transitions in media technology firstly through its physical construction as a text. The way in which the website is a construction of visual references of the geographic locations of the world is in its self an example of media technology cohesively creating a visual text that can be consumed as a commodity. For example, Google Earth incorporates the listings of hotels and restaurants within the maps of many the popular tourist destinations of the world. Indeed this is a prime example of a media medium that is a technologically driven form of informationalism that aligns itself with advertising a service orientated commodity. (Mansell, 2000). Also, access of the Google Earth program is via download from the actual web site, users can choose the trail version which is free or a complete paid version. Essentially, Google Earth can be interpreted as functioning as an advertising mechanism, but simultaneously presents its self as a geographic locator tool for personal inquiry or entertainment.

Through Google Earth presenting these combined services online, coverage across social and cultural field is expediential, and arguably of great influence due to the vast coverage of the internet, thus acting as a key proponent in networking societies of the contemporary world. (Eriksen, 2003). Arguably, this is an example of current transitions in media technology, in the sense Google Earth has been produced as a visual communicator of global geography, and through the use of internet technology, it presents its self as a service that incorporates a consumer pleasing construct. It seems ironic that this text denotes the impacts and influences of globalization, through visually structuring the societies of the world geographically on a web based network, and yet it is inescapably a contributor of networking the global field of cultural production through channels of informationlism. (Eriksen, 2003).

For example, Google Earth acts as a contributor of information in its aesthetic formation. The construction and production of this media text is reliant on current technologies and is a product of media technology. Furthermore, Google Earth is arguably an example of created networks that occur within media technology; in the sense it captures and projects visual information of a geographic localised setting, but simultaneously through the active use of this program users become socially networked and contributors of the world system of globalization. (Armitage, 2002). Therefore, Google Earth is firstly a product of applied technology that exists in the global field of the media; its production is based on contemporary technology, thus having overall impact on consumption and influence with cultural field of production. Secondly, the text demonstrates interconnections between the localised communities and the global village they are part of, through providing a structure of organization where societies are globally networked, and essentially acting as a driving force in the processes of cultural production.

When analysing Google Earth as a media text several assumptions are brought into focus. From a practical point of view Google Earth appears to illuminate itself as having a contributing discourse that could be interpreted as demonstrating the effective realities of globalisation on localised societies. (Ess, 2001). In the sense that Google Earth exhibits a functional value of providing localised societies a connection with mapping information of the globe, inclusive of localised information of any area of focus. This is ultimately a highly socially orientated influential force of information technology, and is arguably a prime component of the broader effects the internet has over cultural production. (Armitage, 2002). For example, Google Earth acts also as a public forum for people to comment further on the geographic location that are visually depicted, such as elaborating on whether Google Earth’s listing are correct.

Therefore, through the practical application of Google Earths influence over localised society it seems clear that as a media text it functions firstly; as a provider of networked information, secondly as a mechanism that provides a forum for a network of societies to exist, interact, and share information collectively, thus globalising localised societies. Furthermore, through forging a networked space within the realm of informationalism that is socially engaging, new formations of cultural production become evident. This being due to the use of such technologies as the internet increasing human beings collective access to information which arguably influences cultural production. (Ess, 2001).

Through the geographic visual representations Google Earth has technologically weaved together and displayed globally on the internet; specifics of information have been made accessible between many societies of the world. (Marshall, 2004). Arguably, the alignment of Google Earth as a counterpart of the internet is that of a specific media text that communicates information of global and local insight. Through communicating collective information of geographic location around the world to localised communities a sense of cultural connectedness presents its self. For example, “Globalisation and localisation in the field of culture – however defined – are the result of communications in its widest possible forms. It is through communication that culture is made public and shared and it is through culture that the forms of communication are shaped.” (Lie, 2003:13). Arguably, Google Earth visually espouses a discourse that is a communication of localised culture in their geographic setting but in a global context, thus illuminating the reality of interconnectedness of the societies and cultural manifestations of the world.

This visual representation of interconnectedness of global society is further demonstrated with the individual user’s engagement with Google Earth, in the sense by using the program one becomes connected to the network of informationalism and ultimately become socially networked through the media text. (Ess, 2001). This effectively presents the realities of globalisation being applied to the cultural field of production, in the sense that through the networks of communication there has been a manifestation of economic, political, and cultural action spread globally which has shaped and interconnected localised societies of the globe. (Shirato and Webb, 2003).

In the particular case of Google Earth’s positioning as an internet based media text, it presents is self as being supportive of communication between the societies of the world, thus functioning as a influencial force over the preservation and development of network societies. Castells (2004:3) articulates the reality of this concept further by stating “A network society is a society whose social structure is made of networks based by microelectronics-based information and communication technologies.” Indeed Google Earth is a fundamental example of facilitating contemporary network societies of the world through the means of information communication technology. Furthermore, Google Earth visually presents information to many societies of the globe via the already established social network the internet provides. It presence online surely has impact over the transition and change between the many societies of the world, due to the network of information it provides.

The point of global culture and its alignment with networked societies can be further elaborated with the aid of theoretical frameworks espoused by Schirato and Webb which denote; “Most theorists fall into one of two camps with respect to the question of global culture. One is the cultural homogenisation camp, the other the cultural hybridisation camp.” (2003:155).

In the case of the homogenization ‘camp’ the concept is upheld that localisation of cultures is eventually dismissed with destruction of individual cultural identity. Schirato and Webb state, “. . . Because of the power of the media to mobilise identity and affect, it is argued, the effect is of a single commodity / identity world, the destruction of the local and the authentic, and the reimagining or renarrativising of traditions as commodities.” (Shirato and Webb, 2003:155). “Globalisation hypothesizes that the world is becoming one place with a single system.” (Lie, 2003:70). Relating these ideologies to the functional realities of Google Earth, it is apparent that through creating a media space in which localised cultures can become interlinked with a network of global information, they become a contributing part of the homogenized global networked society, thus placing their local identity under the umbrella of globalization and ultimately through these networks align the local with the global.

The other is that of the notion of hybridization which suggests that the impact of globalization upon non-westernised cultures does not lead to the extinction of local culture and traditional formations. (Shirato and Webb, 2003). Instead it supports the idea that the global networks created by globalization up hold cultural and social diversity. “Commentators who align themselves with the hybridization argument sometimes suggest that the networking of the globe does not necessarily lead to the extinction of local cultures and local forms. Rather, they argue, it may regenerate traditional practices, languages and forms of cultural production.” ( Shirato and Webb, 2003:157). The systematic processes of Google Earth could be interpreted as helping maintain local cultural and social diversity, in the sense the text allows users to be reflective of their own geographic positioning in contrast to the rest of the globe.

Although, Google Earth as a media text seems to be more so reflective of homogenisation, in particular within the applied realm of networked societies in general. For example, the text takes the approach of providing information of geographic locations of the world, grouped together under the packaging of the Google Earth representations. Further, Google Earth’s global accessibility could be viewed as being symbolically representational of the realities of globalisation and its prevalence within connecting localised societies of the world. In affect this notion of homogenisation that is functionally presented within Google Earth shows a localised formation of cultural production becoming socially connected through these technological networks that can be directly applied to frameworks of globalization. (Marshall, 2004). In addition this media text can be viewed as presenting iconic characteristics of shaping local cultural production through its formations of network society, thus causing local cultural production to become heavily homogenized through transient networks of global information, and becoming ideologically aligned through this public sphere of informationalism.

When attempting to contextualise Google Earth’s relationship with networked societies and cultural production under the umbrella of globalization, one must draw emphasis towards the notion of capitalism, which essentially is a key counterpart of understanding the processes of how globalisation and cultural production interact through network societies. (Peet, 1991).

Primarily global capitalism is fueled by competition in the economic realm, but this is further spread than economy; the impact of capitalism is far more holistic having influence over such facets as political organisation, social and cultural structure, and the natural environment. (Peet, 1991). In the case study of Google Earth and how capitalism is relavant to this text, can be divulged through the depiction of applied promotional advertising of selective hotels, restaurants, and other amenities. Thus showing capitalistic structure applied to create a cultural field related to social demands of consumption.

Furthermore Google Earth as a media text ironically acts as mediator of information that has capitalistic motivations, but also acts as a media text that it is a commodity in its own entirety, being due to the fact one can subscribe to Google Earth for the full version of functions that the text can perform. Thus being an interconnected part of the global capitalistic system. The realities of Global capitalism and its implications over contemporary media ownership are tightly intertwined. As media serves as a mechanism for the transfer of information and the interaction between the many societies of the world, it is arguably a key proponent in shaping and driving global capitalisms existence. The validity of the media’s role in the contextualisation of capitalism is central to the creation of networks that ultimately aid the flow of ideas and the linkage of the global economy. (Peet, 1991).

Neoliberal discourse can be recognised as a key counterpart in driving the capitalistic model (Schrito. T, Webb 2003), but indeed it could be also argued that ideologies of neoliberalism are in fact contradictory to the true practices of capitalism. For example, “Neoliberalism is a way of understanding the world as committed to a particular idea of freedom, in the form of the unfettered circulation of capital and goods. It aspires to the liberation of money and entrepreneurship from social contexts and their obligations.” (Schrito. T, Webb, 2003:218). It is clear that this concept can be widely applied to the practices of capitalism and many of the realities of media ownership, such as in the creation of brands, but within the practices of the model of global capitalism the concept of freedom and liberty that is espoused by neoliberialism is problematic. Google Earth, is arguable a product of Neoliberal ideologies, in the sense the construction of the text is clearly motivated by this Neoliberal discourse.

In conclusion, Google Earth proves to align itself as being functionally influential over network societies and cultural production on a global scale. As a counterpart of the internet, Google Earth supplies a service that provides internet users access to geographic mapping information. Through the applied use of information technology Google Earth has created a service based on supply and demand within the pre-existing network societies forged through the internet. The influence and impact over cultural production in relation to Google Earth’s presence within the network societies of the globe is certain. As it seems technology is central to maintaining the public sphere of the contemporary world, as it is the binding force of communication, and essentially the mechanism in which networked societies are forged. Google Earth as an example of a media text, is undoubtedly a product of technological development, but also created as media tool as a result of cultural production. Further, Google Earth’s presence within the network of societies surely has the influence over future cultural manifestation and production due to its function of sharing knowledge through a networked public sphere.