Overview
A critical study of how digital systems are built, how they govern, and how they reorganise social life.
This course approaches digital technology not as a set of tools, but as a social infrastructure—one that shapes behaviour, distributes power, and redefines what it means to know, relate, and exist in public. What appears frictionless and intuitive is often the result of layered decisions about design, data, and control.
Moving from the construction of technology to the politics of platforms, identity, labour, and resistance, the course develops a way of seeing the digital world as something made and therefore something that can be questioned. By the end, students will not only be able to analyse digital systems critically, but also recognise how their own habits, preferences, and identities have been formed within them.
Syllabus
Week 1
Technology as construction: Dismantling inevitability
Inquiry
Digital systems are often described as if they evolve naturally: faster, smarter, more advanced. This framing obscures the fact that every platform, feature, and interface is the outcome of human decisions shaped by cultural values, economic incentives, and political priorities.
This week introduces the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT), which rejects the idea that technology develops independently of society. Instead, it emerges through negotiation between different groups, each with competing interests. Winner pushes this further, arguing that technologies themselves can embody political arrangements, structuring who has power and who does not.
However, Latour’s (2005) Actor-Network Theory complicates the boundary between human and non-human actors, showing how technologies participate in shaping outcomes rather than simply executing them. The task is to recognise that what feels “natural” in technology is often the most successfully stabilised form of power.
Readings
-
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441.
-
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
-
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Week 2
Platform power: Algorithms, data, and invisible governance
Inquiry
Platforms are often presented as intermediaries: connecting users, organising information, and facilitating interaction. This week, we look at them from a different lens: what if they're governing systems that structure visibility, attention, and behaviour?
We will dismantle Zuboff’s (2019) concept of surveillance capitalism, which reveals how user data is not simply collected but extracted and monetised as predictive value. Then we look at Gillespie's (2018) stance on how platforms moderate content and define boundaries of acceptable speech, often without transparency—as well as Srnicek's (2017) in situating platforms within a broader economic model where control over data and infrastructure becomes the primary source of power.
Readings
-
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
-
Gillespie, T. (2018). Governance of and by platforms. In J. Burgess, A. Marwick, & T. Poell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media (pp. 254–278). SAGE Publications.
-
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Week 3
The digital self: Identity as performance under observation
Inquiry
The digital self is often framed as an extension of identity (authentic, expressive, and self-determined). This week challenges that assumption by examining how platforms structure self-presentation.
Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical framework has become newly relevant in digital contexts, where the boundaries between audiences collapse, and performances must be continuously managed. We also dissect boyd’s (2010) concept of networked publics, which highlights how visibility operates differently online, where content persists, spreads, and becomes searchable. Juxtaposing with Baym’s (2015) work on digital intimacy, we'll unravel how relationships are mediated through platforms that shape not only how we communicate, but what kinds of connections are possible.
Readings
-
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
-
boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
-
Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Week 4
Digital inequality: Access is not the same as advantage
Inquiry
The internet is often celebrated as a levelling force: expanding access to information, markets, and participation. This week complicates that narrative by shifting focus from access to outcomes.
van Dijk (2020) demonstrates that digital inequality is not simply about who is online, but how effectively digital resources are used. Noble (2018) exposes how algorithmic systems reproduce racial and social hierarchies, embedding bias into seemingly neutral search processes. Graham & Woodcock (2019) highlight how digital labour is unevenly distributed globally, often extracting value from the Global South while concentrating benefits elsewhere.
Readings
-
van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
-
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
-
Graham, M., & Woodcock, J. (2019). The gig economy: A critical introduction. Polity
Press.
Week 5
Digital labour: When participation becomes extraction
Inquiry
Digital platforms blur the boundaries between work and leisure, production and consumption. This week examines how participation itself becomes a form of labour.
Terranova’s (2000) concept of free labour highlights how user activity, such as posting, liking, and engaging, generates value without formal compensation, while van Dijck et al. (2018) situate this within a broader platform ecosystem where social interaction is systematically monetised. We'll also dissect Graeber’s (2018) critique of meaningless work, which extends into the digital realm, where visibility and engagement can become ends in themselves, detached from substantive value creation.
Readings
-
Terranova, T. (2000). Free labor: Producing culture for the digital economy. Social
Text, 18(2), 33–58. -
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a
connective world. Oxford University Press. -
Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. Simon & Schuster.
Week 6
Digital futures: Resistance, regulation, and redesign
Inquiry
Having examined how digital systems structure power, the course turns toward intervention. This week explores whether, and how, platforms can be contested, regulated, or reimagined.
Castells (2011) frames networks as central to contemporary power structures, while also enabling new forms of resistance. Tufekci (2017) examines how digital platforms transform social movements, amplifying reach while introducing new vulnerabilities. Morozov (2013) critiques the tendency to treat technological fixes as solutions to fundamentally social problems.
We question not whether change is possible, but what form it can take. Regulation, redesign, and resistance all emerge as partial strategies, each reshaping the system while remaining entangled within it.
Readings
-
Castells, M. (2011). A network theory of power. International Journal of Communication, 5, 773–787.
-
Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.
-
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.