"Networking" a European Community: The Case of a European Commission Egovernment Initiative

Terms such as Network Society or Information Society have gained enormous importance within European policy work and the European Commission’s aim to create and stabilise a European Union or European Community which is innovative and inclusive. Indeed many governments see their responsibility in ensuring the inclusion of the regions they represent in a ‘Networked Society’, and in doing so, ensuring some control over the transformation process. In this process the ‘Networked Society’ becomes a prescriptive concept that designates a desirable objective: A space for ‘making’ Europe by connecting multiple actors. This paper considers critically the limits of the Network Society-concept for researching the very phenomena it sets out to describe. The paper is based on a 3-year ethnographic study of a European Commission initiative to create a European community of practitioners working in the field of eGovernment. The paper attends to material-discursive practices associated with sharing approaches that support and disrupt the making of an ‘interconnected Europe’ and a ‘European Information Society’. The paper provides evidence that such practices do not link and reconfigure independently existing entities, but rather that subject and objects come to be produced within and through such association.

[1]  B. Latour Networks, Societies, Spheres: Reflections of an Actor-network Theorist , 2010 .

[2]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  Exploring Material‐Discursive Practices , 2014 .

[3]  Barbara Czarniawska On Time, Space, and Action Nets , 2004 .

[4]  Janni Nielsen,et al.  European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) , 2008 .

[5]  M. Savage,et al.  Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form , 2006 .

[6]  Rachel Silcock What is E-government , 2001 .

[7]  A. Mol The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice , 2003 .

[8]  M. Castells Informationalism, Networks, And The Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint , 2004 .

[9]  M. Castells,et al.  The Network Society: From Knowledge to Policy , 2006 .

[10]  Karen Barad Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter , 2003, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[11]  M. Ahn Whither E-Government? Web 2.0 and the Future of E-Government , 2012 .

[12]  S. Green,et al.  Scales of Place and Networks , 2005, Current Anthropology.

[13]  Annemarie Mol,et al.  Actor-Network Theory: sensitive terms and enduring tensions , 2010 .

[14]  Susan V. Scott,et al.  10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization , 2008 .

[15]  A. Barry Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society , 2001 .

[16]  Claire Waterton From Field to Fantasy , 2002 .

[17]  S. Gherardi Practice-Based Theorizing on Learning and Knowing in Organizations , 2000 .

[18]  Jannis Kallinikos,et al.  Networks as alternative forms of organization: some critical remarks , 2003, ECIS.

[19]  S. Sassen,et al.  Digital formations: Constructing an object of study , 2005 .

[20]  Chris Rumford,et al.  Many Europes: Rethinking multiplicity , 2012 .

[21]  Dimitris Boucas State, Economy, Society and Recent Information Society Policies in Greece , 2008, ICIS.

[22]  J. Olsen,et al.  The European Commission , 2020, The European Union.

[23]  M. Callon Actor-Network Theory—The Market Test , 1999 .

[24]  Lucy Suchman,et al.  Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions , 2006 .

[25]  A. Barry,et al.  Technological Zones , 2006 .

[26]  Franziska Abend Digital Formations It And New Architectures In The Global Realm , 2016 .