Johnson vs. Morozov: Internet-Centrism and Cyber-Utopianism

Johnson (Future Perfect) and Morozov (The New Republic)

Morozov also against the ideas of what he calls 

cyber-utopianism: the inability to see the Internet's 'darker' side, that is, the capabilities for information control and manipulation of new media space 

and 

Internet-centrism: the growing propensity ["quasi religion"] to view all political and social change through the prism of the Internet   (from Wiki)

Morozov claims Johnson (and Clay Shirky, author of "Here Comes Everybody") are Internet-Centrists, while Johnson claims not to be an Internet-Centrist; he calls IC "naive techno-determinism."

To this, Morozov counters: "The kind of naive determinism that views the “Internet” as a "positive force" and that Johnson seeks to distance himself from has nothing to do with Internet-centrism; it's a feature more commonly attributed to cyber-utopianism, as I clearly state at the very beginning of the review. That Johnson is not a starry-eyed techno-determinist doesn't make him less of an Internet-centrist."

I would argue against Morozov's claim about Shirky being an Internet-Centrist, who has obviously focused his lens through the idea that the Internet is effecting change in social and political developments but does not attribute those changes exclusively to the Internet. In "Here Comes Everybody," (which is the only work of his I've read) Shirky explains that the degree to which information is now spreading on the Internet is so different that we can call it a difference in type. And that the breakdown of barriers like time and distance reduce the gap between action and intention when it comes to political and social moves. But I did not get the impression that he was giving exclusive credit for these changes to the Internet. Still, I have only read a small portion of Shirky's body of work. 

Morozov: "Perhaps it was a mistake to treat the Internet as a deterministic one-directional force for either global liberation or oppression, for cosmopolitanism or xenophobia. The reality is that the Internet will enable all of these forces—as well as many others—simultaneously. But as far as laws of the Internet go, this is all we know. Which of the numerous forces unleashed by the Web will prevail in a particular social and political context is impossible to tell without first getting a thorough theoretical understanding of that context."

Johnson: "The point I tried to make explicit in Future Perfect is one that I’ve been implicitly making for more than a decade now: that peer collaboration is an ancient tradition, with a history as rich and illustrious as the more commonly celebrated histories of states or markets. The Internet happens to be the most visible recent achievement in that tradition, but it is hardly the basis of my worldview. And there is nothing in Future Perfect (or any of these other works) that claims that decentralized, peer-network approaches will always outperform top-down approaches. It’s simply a question of emphasis."

"Liberals can still believe in the power and utility of markets, even if they tend to emphasize big government solutions; all but the most radical libertarians think that there are some important roles for government in our lives. Peer progressives are no different. We don’t think that everything in modern life should be re-engineered to follow the “logic of the Internet.” We just think that society has long benefited from non-market forms of open collaboration, and that they’re aren’t enough voices in the current political conversation reminding us of those benefits. For peer progressives, the Internet is a case-study and a role model, yes, but hardly a deity. We would be making the same argument had the Internet never been invented."

Morozov: "An Internet-centrist asks the question: “What does the Internet want?” as if that question made sense. An Internet-utopian doesn't even ask that question, assuming that the Internet wants democracy and freedom. I don't know if Johnson is an Internet utopian but he is certainly an Internet-centrist.... It it might be useful to step back and ask whether the very fact of bringing “the Internet” in our explanatory accounts is enhancing or impoverishing our understanding of the technological world that we inhabit. Are we gaining anything by lumping thealgorithms used in high-frequency trading with a very different set of algorithms that Twitter uses to decide on its “popular trends” while using the sexy but highly elusive label of “the Internet” to do all that lumping? I don't think so—which is why I've been calling for a highly particularized approach to studying digital technologies—one that would treat each of them on their own terms without having to smuggle in some abstract, macro-level concept such as “the Internet” to smooth over the rough empirical and theoretical edges"

Johnson promotes the ideology of “peer progressivism.” 

Morozov: "What, one might ask, is new about this political ideology? According to Johnson, at least two things. First, its adherents believe that there are some areas of expertise where the public—or the crowd—are more knowledgeable than the experts. Second, “peer progressives”— unlike all those pre-peer progressives—don't have to choose between the state and the market; the two can co-exist, tapping into networks of crowd expertise along the way....
>>>Johnson, comfortably ensconced in his Internetcentric bubble, seems to sincerely believe that no one had ever thought about ways to make democratic politics more participatory before the onset of blogs, chats, and social networks. This, of course, is nonsense. The most unfortunate consequence of Johnson's project might be that, in his half-baked efforts to make a case for “peer progressivism,” he might undermine public support for more serious government reforms that are not as excited about “the Internet” but have developed sophisticated theories about involving crowds and networks in both deliberative and participatory processes."

It seems like Morozov is simply trying to direct the attention of people he perceives to be Internet-Centrists back to the subtleties of the real world which require more context-sensitive thinking. He is reminding us that there are other forces at work besides the Internet in current affairs, and that lumping together complicated phenomena under the umbrella of "the Internet" is actually hindering critical thinking.