Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

ISSN: 1504-4831 Vol 17, No 2 (2021) https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.4224

Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to

copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the

material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its

license.

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media

Education

Horst Niesyto

Former Ludwigsburg University of Education1

Email: niesyto@ph-ludwigsburg.de

Abstract
Digital capitalism has produced a new concentration of capital, knowledge, and power

unprecedented in history. Quantification is fundamental to digital and capitalistic

structural principles. In view of a comprehensive quantification and measurement of life

and society, questions of meaning and significance must be asked beyond quantifying

process structures.

The first part of the article identifies capitalistic and digital structural principles, showing

affinities between both principles. The second part points out central challenges and

problem areas of digital capitalism. The third part discusses the manoeuvres of the IT

industry in Germany to gain more influence on the education sector. Against the

background of these developments, the last part outlines the need for alternative pathways

and presents dimensions of a critical media education.2

Keywords: digital capitalism, IT-industry, commercialization, digitalization, datafication,

media education, media criticism, alternative pathway

1 Retired since 2017
2 The article is based on two German language publications (Niesyto, 2017a, 2021).

https://doi.org/10.7577/seminar.4224

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 2

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Digital capitalism – selected aspects of analysis
The American scientist Dan Schiller published a book on Digital Capitalism in 1999. His

analyses mainly refer to the development of transnational telecommunications companies

and to the history of the Internet:

In this book, I show that the Internet and, indeed, the greater telecommunications

system with which the Internet has intertwined comprise a leading edge of this epic

transnationalization of economic activity (…) Networks are directly generalizing the

social and cultural range of the capitalist economy as never before. That is why I

refer to this new epoch as one of digital capitalism (Schiller, 1999, p. XIV).

Schiller elaborates on how a transformation process is taking place through capital

formation processes to a digital capitalism. He also addresses negative effects on education

and social services: ‘digital capitalism has already begun to prey on education, placing

some of the most sensitive processes of social learning at the mercy of a proprietary market

logic’ (ibid.).

In the same year Peter Glotz (1999) published a book in German dealing with cultural

struggles in digital capitalism. Glotz was a communication scientist and politician.3 He

analysed four basic trends that are closely linked to digitalisation: dematerialisation,

decentralisation, acceleration, globalisation. Glotz referred to the ‘point-to-point structure’

of new, digital forms of communication and analysed the strengthening of a ‘nomadic

lifestyle’. Regarding the further development of society, at that time he predicted:

‘Unchecked and uncontrolled, the development triggered by digitalisation will inevitably

lead to a division of society: into an elite that willingly keeps up with the high (working)

speed, and into a new underclass that will be fed to a large extent by dropouts and

refuseniks’ (Glotz, 1999).4 This prognosis certainly contains elements of current

developments.

In Germany, the sociologist of technology Ulrich Dolata had already presented a study in

2014 on the markets and power of internet corporations. This study analysed the global

corporations Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft. Dolata summarised:

The five corporations studied not only shape the main services and markets of the

internet. As operators of the central infrastructures, they also regulate access to the

network, structure the communication possibilities of the users and are essential

3 Glotz was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and was the SPD's Federal Executive Director
for several years.
4 The citation is from the blurb of his book. Translation by H.N.; original Text (German): ‘Ungebremst und ungesteuert

führt die durch die Digitalisierung angestoßene Entwicklung unweigerlich zu einer Spaltung der Gesellschaft: in eine

Elite, die das hohe (Arbeits-)Tempo bereitwillig mitmacht, und in eine neue Unterschicht, die sich zu einem guten Teil

aus Aussteigern und Verweigerern speist’.

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 3

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

drivers of the innovation process. Not decentralisation, democratisation and

cooperation, but concentration, control and power are, according to the thesis, the

key processes and categories with which the essential development trends of the

(commercial) internet can be adequately classified (Dolata 2014, Abstract).5

It is actually well over 20 years since the publications of Schiller and Glotz. Global digital

capitalism has since developed as different variants and in several stages. Today, it

permeates almost all areas of society. In the meantime, various analyses are available that

accentuate different aspects and dimensions.6 I would like to highlight the publication by

the US economist Shoshana Zuboff entitled The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (Zuboff,

2019). As an important feature, the author names the expropriation and datafication of our

experience as a free resource for the hidden commercial operations of surveillance

capitalism. A 'surveillance economy' – according to Zuboff – is the origin of a 'new

instrumental power' that claims dominion over society. And the German Sociologist

Philipp Staab (2019) drew particular attention – in a continuation of the analysis by

Dolada (2014) – to the system of ‘proprietary markets’ that characterise digital capitalism:

‘Classical monopoly companies operate on markets; the leading companies of digital

capitalism, on the other hand, are markets’ (ibid., p. 30; italics by Staab).7 In a recent

publication, Oliver Nachtwey and Timo Seidl (2020) focus on the ‘spirit of capitalism’ and

analyse normative foundations of entrepreneurial action in the digital economy.

These and other analyses from the field of cultural and media studies (e.g. Hepp, 2020;

Stalder, 2018) illustrate the need to view digitalisation not primarily from a technological

perspective. Without a doubt, a basic understanding of algorithmic processes, the

approach of 'computational thinking' and the formability of digital-technological artefacts

is also important for media pedagogy. However, technological developments cannot be

detached from economic, political, cultural and social, ethical, and aesthetic questions.

People's personal development and coexistence in communities and societies are

inextricably linked with questions of enabling and limiting social living conditions,

structures of economic and social inequality, power and domination relationships, and

processes that promote and endanger democracy.

5 Translation by H.N.; original Text (German): ‘Die fünf untersuchten Konzerne prägen nicht nur wesentliche Angebote
und Märkte des Internets. Sie regeln als Betreiber der zentralen Infrastrukturen auch die Zugänge zum Netz,
strukturieren die Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten der Nutzer und sind wesentliche Treiber des Innovationsprozesses.
Nicht Dezentralisierung, Demokratisierung und Kooperation, sondern Konzentration, Kontrolle und Macht sind, so die
These, die Schlüsselprozesse und -kategorien, mit denen sich die wesentlichen Entwicklungstendenzen des
(kommerziellen) Internets angemessen erfassen lassen’ (Dolata, 2014, Abstract).
6 See an overview of selected publications from various academic perspectives in Niesyto (2017a).
7 Translation by H.N.; original Text (German): ‘Klassische Monopolunternehmen agieren auf Märkten; die

Leitunternehmen des digitalen Kapitalismus hingegen sind Märkte’.

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 4

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

With the current efforts to describe and analyse the phenomena and structures of digital

capitalism, it would not be helpful to refer in a generalised manner to a 'system of

orientation' that was developed by Karl Marx (1867) about 150 years ago. This would not

do justice to the multiple changes and the complexity of economic systems and social

relations. This also includes a differentiated view of the mutual relations of 'base' and

'superstructure' and the overcoming of thinking in antagonisms and in categories of 'right'

and 'wrong' consciousness. Different variants of capitalism have also emerged worldwide

in the context of different political systems (from parliamentary-democratic constitutions

to autocratic and dictatorial regimes).

Nevertheless, the question of the analysis and critique of certain structural patterns and

the transformation possibilities that counteract a growing gap between rich and poor, a

permanent educational disadvantage and an overexploitation of natural resources. Since

the global financial crisis of 2008/09, basic capitalist structures and their effects on almost

all areas of society have again increasingly become the subject of analysis, often in

academic contexts. Important questions in this context are: which basic elements of

'classical' capitalism analysis are still relevant in today's technological, economic, and

(world) social conditions? What has changed in digital capitalism?

Capitalistic structural principles

Different types, such as advanced capitalism, finance capitalism, free-market capitalism, or

welfare capitalism have a few characteristics in common that can be summarised as follows

(cf. Niesyto, 2017a, p. 16-17):

1. The principle of capital accumulation (pursuit of profit) on the basis of private property

(land, raw materials, means of production, shares, etc.); linked to this: the principle of

thinking in terms of quantitative growth.

2. The principle of monopolisation in order to achieve permanent dominance of the

capitalistic structured (world) market through capital concentration processes; linked

to this: globalisation in the sense of opening up and densifying globally distributed

development, production, distribution, and sales locations.

3. The principle of reducing the costs of human labour in order to save capital in the long

term through the use of new technologies; linked to this: acceleration and flexibilisation

of work processes; computerisation and immaterialisation.

4. The principle of economising as many areas of society as possible in order to constantly

open up new areas for the accumulation of capital; linked to this: quantification and

measurement of institutions, 'consumers', and 'customers' – all the way into sensitive

and intimate areas.

The thesis is that the outlined capitalistic structural principles are still valid, and that

capitalism received a huge boost through the utilisation of digital technologies. One of the

reasons for this is that these principles have an affinity with digital structural principles

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 5

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

and that digital technology has opened up new social areas for the accumulation of capital.

It is about affinities; the connectivity of both structural principles. No determinant

interdependencies are assumed. Digital technologies can be used for different purposes.

This needs to be reflected again and again.

Digital structural principles

The following structural principles should be mentioned here in particular (cf. Niesyto,

2017a, p. 18):

1. The principle of binarisation: conversion of analogue signals into binary values (a

complex series of 0 and 1 values), which appear only as grid points; numerical

representation of data of the most varied kinds and their use, storage, processing,

distribution, and representation in a binary coded form; binarisation as a

precondition for the algorithmisation of processes and problems to be solved.

2. The principle of variability and simulation as the opportunity to enter into any media

artefacts, to reprocess and change them bit by bit, to recreate imaginary spaces.

Writing, sounds, images, moving images, graphics, language, sounds, and music can

be electronically processed and recreated.

3. Principle of instantaneousness [German: Augenblicklichkeit]: information, sounds,

images, and so on, are transported at the speed of light and enable interactivity and

worldwide networking in real time (point-to-point accessibility).

4. The principle of miniaturisation of individual components into functional blocks

whose temporal circuits are in the nanosecond range (billionths of a second), as well

as the principle of modularisation, namely the arbitrary exchangeability and

compilation of digital production elements.

Affinity between digital and capitalistic structural principles

Above all, quantification is a fundamental common feature: the measurability of

processes, cost factors, and profit rates corresponds closely with numerical representations

of data. Thus, Big Data projects in particular are in demand, which, in the face of huge

amounts of data, enable targetted, rational, and efficient filtering and processing for

various purposes on the basis of algorithmic procedures.8 In combination with the digital

structural principle of instantaneousness, huge capital profit can be achieved in the

shortest possible time in these quantifying processes, for instance in high-frequency

trading on the stock exchanges (cf. Vogl, 2011, p. 94, 107). This form of financial capitalism

completely separates value creation processes from concrete objects and human labour

and simulates financial worlds that have no equivalent in the 'real economy'.

In general, digital networking and interactivity enable the constant and flexible

8 On quantification, see also the analysis by Steffen Mau: Das metrische Wir. Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen
(Mau, 2017). [English: The Metric We. On the quantification of the social.]

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 6

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

availability of people and machines. In particular, spatial and temporal flexibility

demands on manpower can be specifically implemented through the use of digital

technologies. It is known from various fields of work that the constant accessibility,

acceleration, and compression of work processes can lead to permanent overload and

stress from the point of view of the employees concerned by the absence of regulations

(time limits). The flexible, worldwide availability of people and machines is a central factor

in being able to drive capital accumulation as a ‘global player’ in the direction of capital

concentration and monopolisation (the search for the most cost-effective development,

production, and distribution locations and their global networking).

The digital structural principles of variability and simulation fit very well with capitalist

structural principles that aim for permanent adaptability, efficiency, and economic

usability. The 'Internet of Things' is an area in which it is currently becoming very clear

how the interplay of physical and data worlds (also simulations) is becoming ever more

fluid and intensive. The measurement of almost all life worlds and of one's own body (self-

tracking etc.) offer the optimisation of everyday life and the self (cf. Mau, 2016). However,

they have a hard capitalist core: the development of new sales markets, the

commercialisation of more and more areas of life, the control and surveillance of the body.

The miniaturisation and modularisation of digital components are important

technological preconditions for reducing the amount of work and materials required, for

computerising production technology and logistics in machine-to-machine communication

(Industry 4.0) and for pushing the human–computer interface in the direction of human

enhancement. Originally, the focus was on assistive computer technologies to support

people with disabilities. In the meantime, numerous new fields of application are

emerging. Keywords: artificial intelligence, robotics, data glasses, augmented reality.

Whereas in the past media technologies primarily enabled forms of medial extension (to

reach into the distance, e.g. telegraphy, television), digital technologies now extend these

possibilities into the body. This is what I would like to describe as medial incorporation. It

can be assumed that bioinformatics in particular will be heavily courted by various

commercial enterprises in the future in order to open up new markets through the use of

corresponding technologies. Connected to this are fundamental anthropological, ethical,

and social questions of being a human and a subject in digitalised societies. Keywords:

farewell to the autonomy of the subject, new forms of totalitarian surveillance and

domination (cf. Zuboff, 2019).

Digital capitalism – some challenges
The analysis of structural affinities between digital and capitalistic structural principles is

important in order to recognise connections between technological, economic, political,

cultural, and also socialisation developments. For example, the (cultural) sociologist

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 7

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Richard Sennett pointed out as early as 1998 in his book Der flexible Mensch. Die Kultur

des neuen Kapitalismus, the problematic aspects of a permanent pressure to which people

are exposed in globalised network capitalism (see also Sennett, 2007). Structural

principles such as constant, flexible availability and permanent adaptability promote a

mode of socialisation that accelerates fragmentation in life-world contexts. What is

required – according to sociologists Lothar Böhnisch and Wolfgang Schröer – is behaviour

that is oriented from situation to situation, from point to point. People should be distracted

from asking about the power structures associated with the demands for flexibility

(Böhnisch et al., 2009, p. 133). Similarly, the sociologist Hartmut Rosa analysed increasing

‘short-short patterns’ of time perception: experiences remain episodic and are no longer

linked to each other, to history, and to each person's own identity (Rosa, 2005, p. 470).

The structural principles and development trends outlined have the potential to

fundamentally change everyday life and work as well as the way individuals live together in

society. In particular, profit- and technology-driven models of the future that ultimately

subordinate the complexity of being human to profit maximisation and the precision of

algorithmic calculations and unambiguities are to be critically evaluated. At the same time,

it should be noted that digital technologies are being used in numerous areas for

enlightened, critical, democratic, and participatory purposes. We are dealing with a

contradictory situation: on the one hand, capitalism proves its self-renewal power by

placing the systematic utilisation of digital data at the centre of its capital accumulations

and (so far) manages to sell data expropriation processes to large parts of the population as

an unproblematic concomitant and even personal advantage, in accordance with the

motto: ‘I have nothing to hide, receive targetted information and offers in return, and can

participate in the lives of many people’. On the other hand, the active use of digital

technologies is associated with hopes and developments such as the sharing economy,

decentralisation, cooperation, open access instead of the principle of ownership,

democratisation of manufacturing, strengthening of social–ecological forms of economy,

and so on. Identifying these contradictions and dealing with them is a social and

educational challenge and task.

Personality development is inextricably linked to questions about social living conditions,

structures of social inequality, power and dominance relations, and processes that promote

and endanger democracy. Strengthening a perspective that is critical of society and the

media is especially necessary in a situation where problem areas of digitalisation are

becoming increasingly clear in the context of economic and political interests. The

following problem areas are examples:

• the commercial expropriation and exploitation of personal data profiles and the

enormous commercialisation of life worlds linked to this; keywords:

commercialisation of media communication and social spaces, influencer

advertising, spread of a market-shaped way of thinking in many areas of life (e.g.

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 8

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Reißmann, 2014);

• the emergence of new, partly totalitarian power structures in connection with Big

Data, including the filter bubble problem, social bots, micro targetting; new forms of

social control, monitoring, steering, and manipulation in many areas, also in

education (e.g. Pariser, 2011; Gapski, 2015; Zuboff, 2018; Iske et al., 2020);

• social inequalities and disadvantages, especially for older population groups and

people with minimal formal education, or those who do not have sufficient

resources and whose future is particularly uncertain in view of the digital

transformation and new working relationships (e.g. Hargittai, 2002; Kutscher &

Iske, 2020);

• the further technical and social acceleration of everyday life and work processes.

Keywords: tendency to dissolve spatio-temporal continuities and social milieus,

fluid relationships, fragmentation of public spheres, constant excitement of media

attention, loss of reflexivity (e.g. Rosa, 2009; Niesyto, 2012).

The advance of the IT industry in the education sector has developed into a special

problem area. It involves various dimensions ranging from the targetted use of the

buzzwords 'digital education' [‘digitale Bildung’] to broad education policy lobbying and

networking as well as subtle and overt forms of influence and advertising at schools and

universities (hardware and software, learning platforms, digital learning materials,

certification of additional qualifications, free offers, etc.). Several analyses are now

available under the term 'education industrial complex' or EdTech (Education Technology)

Industry.9 The following section focusses on some aspects of it in Germany and outlines

how the buzzwords 'digital education' have developed into another ‘approach lane’ for the

IT industry in the education sector in recent years.

The advance of the IT economy in the education
sector
With the 'Digitalpakt Schule' (‘Digital Pact for Schools’), the German government has for

some time been making more public funds available for the digital-technological

infrastructure equipment of schools. At the same time, considerably more public funds are

needed for teacher training so that media-related education and learning processes can be

supported. So far, the ministries of education and science in Germany have failed to

establish media education either in teacher training or in schools in a broad-based and

sustainable manner (cf. Niesyto, 2017b, pp. 182-188). Apparently, education policy is now

9 See, among others, the publications by Picciano & Spring (2013), Verger et al. (2017), Williamson & Hogon (2020).
For publications in German language see for instance Förschler (2018), Münch (2018), Hug & Madritsch (2020),
Bernhard et al. (2020).

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 9

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

counting on the IT industry to become more involved also in teacher training and ‘digital

education’.

The influence of the IT industry on education has increased considerably in Germany using

the buzzwords 'digital education'. The prevailing education policy in Germany focusses

primarily on 'digitalisation'. Everything is becoming digital, also research on 'digital

education' is to be intensified (BMBF, 2020). It is true that 'digital education' is a catchy

word that seems suitable for education policy arenas. But there are more and more critical

voices. Among other things, it is pointed out that the adjective 'digital' is factually incorrect

with regard to education because there can be no 'digital' theory of education. ‘Educational

processes remain educational processes – with or without the aid of digital technology’,

says the Council for Cultural Education in a statement (Kulturelle Bildung, 2019; p. 22; cf.

also Fuchs, 2021, p. 163 and Kübler, 2018).

At the same time, the word 'digital education' shortens the view of the multidimensionality

of the pedagogical task. Basic competences that are elementary for educational and

learning processes, such as the ability to reflect and criticise, educational and learning

theory basics, and elementary pedagogical-didactic and media pedagogical competences

are increasingly marginalised (cf. DGfE, 2017). Finally, the digital hype overlooks the fact

that besides change and 'disruption' there are also continuities. Digital technology and

digital aesthetics change previous analogue systems of symbols and signs. It is important

to acquire competences in algorithmic processes and in handling and creating with digital

media. But digital techniques and aesthetics do not replace basic knowledge and

competences in symbol and sign systems, for instance in the field of visual design and

communication with photos and film/video.

In Germany, business-related initiatives, foundations, and platforms have been

significantly increasing their influence in public education for some time. These include

the Bündnis für Bildung [Alliance for Education], the Bundesverband digitale Bildung

[Federal Association for Digital Education}, the Forum Bildung Digitalisierung

[Digitalisation Education Forum] and the Netzwerk digitale Bildung [Digital Education

Network] (cf. Förschler, 2018).10 In the meantime, the IT industry, in cooperation with the

Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), has succeeded in gathering voices from various fields for

the support of a 'Digital Education Charter'.11 This charter focusses on 'digital competences'

in connection with 'digital education' with euphonious words such as the ‘ability to judge,

creativity, self-determination, creative ability, sense of responsibility’. Media education is

no longer mentioned in the charter – although there was previously an exchange between

representatives of computer science and media education.12

10 cf. https://www.bfb.org/; https://bvdb.org/; https://www.forumbd.de; https://www.netzwerk-digitale-bildung.de/
11 cf. https://charta-digitale-bildung.de
12 cf. ‚Dagstuhl-Erklärung‘ (GI, 2016), ‚Frankfurt-Dreieck‘ (Initiative KBoM, 2019)

https://www.bfb.org/
https://bvdb.org/
https://www.forumbd.de/
https://www.netzwerk-digitale-bildung.de/
https://charta-digitale-bildung.de/

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 10

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Media education has been increasingly marginalised in recent years, while the IT industry

has spread into the education sector. This development becomes clear when one takes a

look at the very important task of media criticism for media education, for example.

Fundamental dimensions of media criticism and an analysis of questions of digital

capitalism and data capitalism are not desired by the initiatives mentioned previously and

lobby groups. An analysis of documents of business-related IT initiatives shows, among

other things, that with the reference to 'digital sovereignty', it is primarily about an

individual expansion of competences in order to constantly adapt to digital innovations

and, in particular, contexts of economic exploitation (e.g. Vereinigung der Bayerischen

Wirtschaft e. V., 2018, p. 60 f.).13

It is also no coincidence that at national and EU levels, corresponding policy papers and

funding programmes are increasingly being used to realise interpretive dominance and to

enforce objectives in the education and science sector that are closely oriented to the

economy . A study by Altenrath et al. (2020), for example, comes to the conclusion that in

the programmes and funding guidelines examined, economic competitiveness is the

essential background for the argument (ibid., p. 6) and 'digital competence' is largely

regarded as an individual prerequisite for employability (ibid, p. 8). Although critical or

creative competences in dealing with digital media are mentioned, they are not a focus – it

is more about technological sovereignty (ibid., p. 14).14

The British media educator David Buckingham comes to a similar conclusion: ‘Advocates

of digital education have increasingly recognized the need for young people to acquire

digital media literacy. However, this idea is often seen in instrumental terms, and is rarely

implemented in any coherent or comprehensive way’ (cf. Buckingham, 2019). Concepts of

'media education' and a broad understanding of 'media literacy' play virtually no role in

economy-related documents and strategies.15 At the international political level (EU and

UNESCO), there is now a tendency to equate 'digital literacy' with 'media literacy' (cf.

Trültzsch-Wijnen, 2020, p. 218)—a tendency that has also been observed for some time in

education policy in Germany.

While science ministries and most universities do not yet see themselves in a position to

13 Regarding these adaptations, see also Valentin Dander in his article on Ideological Aspects of 'Digitalisation'. In his
summary, he states, among other things: ‘The formative task thus consists primarily in the adaptation that institutions
and individuals have to carry out, and hardly in creating contextual conditions that make the use of digital
technologies more likely, for example for social justice’ (Dander, 2018b, p. 271; translation by H.N.; original Text
(German): „Die Gestaltungsaufgabe besteht demnach primär in der Anpassungsleistung, die Institutionen wie
Individuen an sich zu vollziehen haben, und kaum darin, Kontextbedingungen zu schaffen, die den Einsatz digitaler
Technologien etwa für soziale Gerechtigkeit wahrscheinlicher werden lassen’ (Dander, 2018, S. 271). See also Dander's
article in this issue of seminar.net
14 See also the article by Altenrath et al. in this issue of seminar.net
15 At both national and EU level, there are also other policy papers and funding programmes in various fields of action
that pursue not only economy-related objectives. As an example, the following can be mentioned with regard to the
EU level: European Guidelines for Digital Youth Work (2019): https://www.digitalyouthwork.eu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/4/2019/09/european-guidelines-for-digital-youth-work-web.pdf

https://www.digitalyouthwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/09/european-guidelines-for-digital-youth-work-web.pdf
https://www.digitalyouthwork.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/09/european-guidelines-for-digital-youth-work-web.pdf

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 11

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

establish media pedagogy in a broad and obligatory way – especially in the form of basic

media education16 – in pedagogical courses, various IT companies offer schools workshops

for teachers and teaching materials (in addition to selling hardware and software),

including many free offers. There are now subtle and overt forms of influence via various

advertising measures (Schmerr, 2019). Examples: Apple encourages teachers around the

world to train as Apple Distinguished Educators in order to subsequently promote Apple

products in schools and at congresses; in a similar way, Microsoft tries to gain influence in

schools with its Microsoft Innovative Educator Experts program; Google also advertises

its own devices and software products with free teaching materials in order to generate

brand loyalty among children as young as elementary school age. Martina Schmerr

analyzes that the interests of the digital economy in the education sector are manifold –

they range from improving their own market position, image cultivation and early brand

loyalty to collecting data from young people and lesson designs from teachers (Schmerr,

2019, 59f.).

At the same time, there is a lack of reflection and regulation to ensure the quality of digital

educational media. In a dossier on the activities of the digital industry in the education

sector, the Gewerkschaft Erziehung Wissenschaft (GEW, 2019) analysed the large IT

corporations Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung Electronics and the lobby association

Bitkom (Germany). With regard to Bitkom, the dossier summarises the association thus: ‘A

one-sided focus on digital media becomes clear, in line with the orientation of the member

companies, whose use is exclusively and fundamentally evaluated positively’ (ibid., p. 9).

Published in recent years, these in-depth analyses and articles are recommended on the

topic of education, digitalisation, and the IT economy:

• Annina Förschler (2018) elaborated a critical and detailed policy network analysis

on the 'Who’s who?' of the German education digitalisation agenda. On the basis of

a network ethnographic survey, it is shown that private-sector interests in the

EdTech industry are becoming increasingly closely linked to education policy

programmes. The influence of various EdTech actors is elaborated and detailed in

particular using the example of the Bündnis für Bildung (BfB; engl.: Alliance for

Education).

• In a study on the economisation of school education, Tim Engartner (2020)

analyses, among other things, how extremely lucrative sales markets are being

created for IT companies within the framework of the so-called 'DigitalPakt Schule'.

Engartner shows how digitalisation in schools has so far been shaped more by

economic interests than by pedagogical concepts and how ministries have often

16 cf. Imort/Niesyto (2014), https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/grundbildungmedien-uebersicht/ and
https://horst-niesyto.de/medienpaedagogische-grundbildung/

https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/grundbildungmedien-uebersicht/s
https://horst-niesyto.de/medienpaedagogische-grundbildung/

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 12

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

declared the application and usability of education for the labour market to be the

standard of school teaching and learning processes.

• Sigrid Hartong (2020) points out that a serious problem in the basic logic of

digitalisation is the related datafication and algorithmisation of education. Hartong

states that a debate ‘about the powerful politics of modelling in educational

software, school platforms, but also in school administration or school supervision

software is so far almost completely missing’ – ‘And this although these systems

increasingly influence decisions of educational actors’ (ibid.).17

• In an article, Theo Hug and Reinhold Madritsch (2020) first summarise the

previous international discussion on education industry developments and then

analyse the situation in Austria. In their conclusion they state, among other things,

that an ‘intensified support of the globalised education industry has taken place

without broad public discussion’.18 They point out that there is much to be said

against excessive outsourcing of the core tasks of the education system relevant to

civil society and the rule of law to private service providers or tech companies (ibid.,

p. 35).

Antoni Verger et al. (2017) present an analysis of the rise and consequences of a global

education industry (GEI), which describes new forms of private-sector, profit-oriented

activities in education at the international level and explains this using selected examples

(see also Bernhard et al., 2018; Münch, 2018). On the state of the development of

googlefication of the classroom in the USA, Natasha Singer, among others, provides a

(partial) insight into the state of commercialisation in the US education system: ‘The tech

giant is transforming public education with low-cost lap tops and free apps (...) Schools

may be giving Google more than they are getting: generations of future customers’ (Singer,

2017).

17 Translation by H.N.; original Text (German): Hartong konstatiert, dass eine Debatte „um die machtvolle Politik der

Modellierung bei Lernsoftware, Schulplattformen, aber auch bei Schulverwaltungs- oder Schulaufsichtssoftware

bislang fast vollständig’ fehlt – „Und das, obgleich diese Systeme in wachsendem Maße Entscheidungen von

Bildungsakteuren beeinflussen’ (ebd.). See also earlier publications on the subject area by Sigrid Hartong:

https://www.hsu-hh.de/sozgov/team/prof-dr-sigrid-hartong/. A recent article presents a study on the implementation

and transformation of state education monitoring systems in Germany and the USA (Hartong & Förschler, 2020).

18 Translation by H.N.; original Text (German): ‘In ihrem Fazit halten sie u.a. fest, dass eine „intensivierte Förderung der
globalisierten Bildungsindustrie ohne breite öffentliche Diskussion’ erfolgte’. See also the article by Theo Hug in this
issue of seminar.net

https://www.hsu-hh.de/sozgov/team/prof-dr-sigrid-hartong/

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 13

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Strengthening alternative pathways and critical
media education
It is not only with regard to school education that the question arises of alternatives to the

commercial offers of the large IT corporations that are suitable for educational institutions

and do not involve the constant expropriation of data. Challenges are emerging here at

various levels, including data protection issues, open access, and interoperability of

systems. Europe has enormous research and technology capacities – why is it not possible

for hardware and software systems to be developed at EU level that offer a real alternative

to the commercial offerings of the global IT corporations in terms of usability which are at

the same time compatible with local infrastructures? It also needs to be clarified how the

quality of digital learning materials will be ensured in pedagogical contexts in the future.

Various actors need to be involved in this, especially pedagogical specialists and teachers,

and also pupils and students – not only the providers of materials and representatives of

state administration. This also applies to materials and platforms offered in the context of

Open Educational Resources (OER). Quality assurance also includes a ban on advertising

IT industry products in public education institutions and various data protection issues.

This requires, for example, data management systems that are compatible with the GDPR

and whose compliance is also monitored (cf. Hug & Madritsch, 2020, p. 11 f.). And above

all, there is a need for a Basic Media Education for all pedagogical staff and in-depth

studies in media education (cf. Imort & Niesyto, 2014). Many fields of media education are

still dominated by project-related funding and there is a structural lack of permanent staff

positions.

To overcome the situation of dependency on the system of ‘proprietary markets’ of digital

capitalism (Staab, 2019), political and legal framework conditions for global IT

corporations are necessary. This is not only about addressing the economic power

structures of IT corporations, but also the dependency structures that platform operators

have now created via opaque algorithmic structuring of social relations and social

communication (cf. Dolata, 2020). At the same time, the development of democratic,

public welfare oriented digital infrastructures and resource-saving processes beyond the

commercial-capitalist exploitation interests of corporations is urgently needed. Media and

communication scientist Robin Mansell drew attention to the general need for dialogue on

alternative pathways in connection with fundamental questions of the digital

transformation:

A dialogue is needed about possible alternative pathways, that is, alternative social

imaginaries which themselves can start to shape action that leads to shifts in

investment, in business models and in policies that will guide our choices about

digital innovation pathways. (...) The ‘datafication’ of our lives is only a pre-

determined outcome if we persist in believing that it is (Mansell, 2018, p. 61).

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 14

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Political forces that are not part of the education industrial complex should support the

development at an EU level of an alternative infrastructure to the data capitalism of IT

corporations to be made available to public education as soon as possible. In this context,

we need a discourse by society as a whole on the guiding principles of future social,

economic, and media development – and also in its importance for the education system.

For example, schools should open up substantially more new spaces for the experience of

self-efficacy and for social participation and use the potential of digital media for this. It is

a very important task of media education to participate in this discourse with a strong

voice and to articulate its own proposals and demands.

Developing media education as a critical media and social analysis and at the same time as

a subject-oriented, reflexive science of action and a pedagogical work area is not a

contradiction. Both are necessary: on the one hand, an orientation towards people, their

needs, interests and ways of life, ambivalences, and contradictions is needed and on the

other hand, the investigation of social media patterns and structures that influence

people's perception, thinking and actions. It is necessary to strengthen a media-critical

perspective as an elementary task of media pedagogy (Niesyto & Moser, 2018). In the

following passage, I will outline three dimensions that, in my view, are primarily associated

with 'media-critical'.

First of all, it is about a critical-reflexive basic attitude (cf. Niesyto, 2012, p. 48f., 59f.). The

Latin root of 'reflection' goes back to ‘reflexio’: to turn, to bend. To turn a thought and a

position back and forth (re-flect), to put oneself in another position, to look at a situation

from different perspectives is part of the standards of good education and science. This

process of re-thinking is inseparably linked to the ability to criticise. The Greek root of

'criticism' goes back to ‘krinein’: to distinguish, to decide, to separate. It is about

distinguishing, comparing, evaluating facts, objects, actions. In the process of turning and

comparing a thought, a thing, a situation (‘reflexio’) we discover differences. At the same

time, we need criteria, standards for evaluating and classifying differences and for the

question of what we decide (‘krinein’). The naming of criteria or standards is linked to

norms and values, which are an important part of choice and evaluation processes. These

processes are complex and also require (media) ethical reflections. It is not only a matter of

conscious, rational considerations, but also of dealing with emotional-affective attitudes,

unquestioned patterns of perception and behaviour, socialisation, and individual

characters and dispositions.

Another dimension refers to the subject matter of media criticism. In an academic context,

media criticism is a term used in various disciplines, especially in media and

communication studies, journalism, and media education. Media criticism in pedagogical

contexts emphasises above all a quality-related analysis of social media offerings and

reflection on one's own use, production, and communication with media. The broad

spectrum of media-critical analyses and activities ranges from the analysis of stereotypical

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 15

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

images of roles and society in the media to the discovery of media sound and image

manipulation possibilities in addition to reflexive phases in projects of active media work

and the evaluation of various media products by children and young people, for instance in

the context of film juries, reviews of computer games, or the evaluation of digital learning

materials.19

In current discourses it becomes clear that media criticism in pedagogical contexts has

additional requirements especially for well-founded data and technology criticism (e.g.

Dander, 2018a; Iske et al., 2020; Knaus, 2020) and of a critical analysis of media and

society (e.g. Niesyto, 2020). In this context, it is also about questions of social situations

and educational inequality (permanently inadequate cultural, social, media, and economic

resources), the explanation and reflection of normative orientations, and media criticism

as part of a political-cultural and milieu-sensitive media education. For this, it is necessary

to promote the ability of media criticism in a vivid and practical way in connection with

one's own media productions – especially in structurally disadvantaged educational and

social milieus (Niesyto, 2017b, ch. 4-6; cf. also the approach 'Digital Citizenship', Moser,

2018).

Finally, a critical media education is faced with the task of positioning itself more clearly

again in the social context of education and professional policy (cf. Niesyto, 2021). The

goals and structures of profit- and technology-driven digitalisation must be questioned,

also in connection with differentiated technology impact assessments. Media education

should actively participate in this. Many initiatives and fields of inquiry have developed to

support Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). In German-language media

education, there are currently contributions that also refer more strongly to these activities

under media aspects (e.g. Barberi et al., 2020; Ring, 2020; Schluchter, 2020). Overall, it is

about addressing social imbalances in the relationship between people, the economy,

technology, culture, and nature, and about aspects of sufficiency in the production, use,

and disposal of media as well as the development of alternative pathways to capitalist

forms of digitalisation. For this, a broad alliance of media education with interested

partners in as many areas as possible is essential to gain more attention and influence in

the public and political sphere. Without such a broad alliance, it will hardly be possible to

realise sufficient infrastructural framework conditions for a considerably broader support

of media education in the long term.20

At the European level, it would be desirable for media educators to become more involved

in discourses and networks supporting alternative pathways (Mansell, 2018) to the current

19 For theory, research and current discourses regarding media pedagogical media criticism, see Niesyto (2020). See
also a compact presentation on the net: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medienkritik_(Medienpädagogik).
20 See, among others, the demands and proposals of the initiative No education without media!: https://www.keine-
bildung-ohne-medien.de

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medienkritik_(Medienpädagogik)
https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/
https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 16

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

mainstream of strategies of digitalisation. In a report in the context of the Corona crisis,

Williamson & Hogon (2020) clearly make reference to a tension in view of increasing

commercialisation in education:

The shift in authority from the state to private actors might make sense on efficiency

grounds, but also entails the undermining of democratic control of public education.

(…) The commercial activities we have documented in this report indicate an

emerging tension that will be at the core of any debates about education after the

pandemic has passed: a tension over the very purposes of education, and of what

knowledge or skills should be taught in schools to achieve those purposes. Will this

continued shift in authority to private actors further undermine democratic control

of public education? (Williamson & Hogan, 2020, p. 66 f.)

In this situation, it is an important task of scientists to articulate themselves publicly and,

on the basis of a well-founded analysis, to oppose the increasing commercialisation in

education and to participate in the development of alternative pathways.

References
Altenrath, M., Helbig, C., Hofhues, S. (2020). Deutungshoheiten: Digitalisierung und

Bildung in Programmatiken und Förderrichtlinien Deutschlands und der EU. In

MedienPädagogik, 565-594. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/jb17/2020.05.22.X.

Barberi, A., Grünberger, N., Himpsl-Gutermann, K., Ballhausen, T. (2020). Editorial.

Nachhaltigkeit, Digitalisierung und Medienpädagogik? – Über neue

Herausforderungen und Verantwortungen. In medien impulse 3/2020.

https://www.medienimpulse.at

Bernhard, A., Bierbaum, H., Borst, E., Eble, L., Kunert, S., Rießland, M., Rühle, M. (Hrsg.)

(2018). Bildungsindustrie. Band 5 der Reihe Kritische Pädagogik – Eingriffe und

Perspektiven. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.

BMBF – Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2020). Bildung digital.

https://www.bmbf.de/de/bildung-digital-3406.html

Böhnisch, L., Lenz, K., Schröer, W. (2009). Sozialisation und Bewältigung. Eine

Einführung in die Sozialisationstheorie der zweiten Moderne. Weinheim/München:

Juventa.

Buckingham, D. (2019). Rethinking digital literacy: Media education in the age of digital

capitalism. https://ddbuckingham.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/media-education-

in-digital-capitalism.pdf

https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/jb17/2020.05.22.X
https://www.medienimpulse.at/
https://www.bmbf.de/de/bildung-digital-3406.html
https://ddbuckingham.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/media-education-in-digital-capitalism.pdf
https://ddbuckingham.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/media-education-in-digital-capitalism.pdf

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 17

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Bundesregierung (2018). Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD.

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/koalitionsvertrag-zwischen-cdu-

csu-und-spd-195906

Dander, V. (2018a). Medienpädagogik im Lichte / im Schatten digitaler Daten. In

MedienPädagogik. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/diss.vd.01.X

Dander, V. (2018b). Ideologische Aspekte von ‚Digitalisierung‘. Eine Kritik des

bildungspolitischen Diskurses um das KMK–Strategiepapier ‚Bildung in der digitalen

Welt‘. In C. Leineweber, C. de Witt (Hrsg.), Digitale Transformation im Diskurs.

Kritische Perspektiven auf Entwicklungen und Tendenzen im Zeitalter des Digitalen.

https://ub-deposit.fernuni-hagen.de/receive/mir_mods_00001459

DGfE – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft Sektion Medienpädagogik

(2017). Orientierungsrahmen für die Entwicklung von Curricula für

medienpädagogische Studiengänge und Studienanteile Medienpädagogik.

http://www.dgfe.de/fileadmin/OrdnerRedakteure/Sektionen/Sek12_MedPaed/Orie

ntierungsrahmen_Sektion_Medienpaed_final.pdf

Dolata, U. (2020). Internet – Platforms – Regulations. Coordination of Markets and

Curation of Sociality. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart, SOI Discussion Paper.

https://www.sowi.uni-

stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2020_2_Dolata.Internet.Platforms.Regu

lation.pdf

Dolata, U. (2014): Märkte und Macht der Internetkonzerne. Stuttgart: Universität

Stuttgart, SOI Discussion Paper. https://www.sowi.uni-

stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2014_4_Dolata_Maerkte_und_Macht_

der_Internetkonzerne.pdf

Engartner, T. (2020). Ökonomisierung schulischer Bildung. Analysen und Alternativen.

Studie im Auftrag der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung.

https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Studien/Studien_6-

2020_Oekonomisierung_schulischer_Bildung_Web.pdf

Förschler, A. (2018). Das ‚Who is who?‘ der deutschen Bildungs-Digitalisierungsagenda –

eine kritische Politiknetzwerk-Analyse. In Pädagogische Korrespondenz, 58, 31 – 52.

Fuchs, M. (2021): Der Mensch und seine Medien. Medienbildung als kulturelle Bildung?

Weinheim: Beltz Verlag.

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/koalitionsvertrag-zwischen-cdu-csu-und-spd-195906
https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/koalitionsvertrag-zwischen-cdu-csu-und-spd-195906
https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/diss.vd.01.X
https://ub-deposit.fernuni-hagen.de/receive/mir_mods_00001459
http://www.dgfe.de/fileadmin/OrdnerRedakteure/Sektionen/Sek12_MedPaed/Orientierungsrahmen_Sektion_Medienpaed_final.pdf
http://www.dgfe.de/fileadmin/OrdnerRedakteure/Sektionen/Sek12_MedPaed/Orientierungsrahmen_Sektion_Medienpaed_final.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2020_2_Dolata.Internet.Platforms.Regulation.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2020_2_Dolata.Internet.Platforms.Regulation.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2020_2_Dolata.Internet.Platforms.Regulation.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2014_4_Dolata_Maerkte_und_Macht_der_Internetkonzerne.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2014_4_Dolata_Maerkte_und_Macht_der_Internetkonzerne.pdf
https://www.sowi.uni-stuttgart.de/dokumente/forschung/soi/soi_2014_4_Dolata_Maerkte_und_Macht_der_Internetkonzerne.pdf
https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Studien/Studien_6-2020_Oekonomisierung_schulischer_Bildung_Web.pdf
https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Studien/Studien_6-2020_Oekonomisierung_schulischer_Bildung_Web.pdf

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 18

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Gapski, H. (Hrsg.) (2015). Big Data und Medienbildung. Zwischen Kontrollverlust,

Selbstverteidigung und Souveränität in der digitalen Welt. Schriftenreihe zur

digitalen Gesellschaft NRW, Band 3. München: kopaed.

GI – Gesellschaft für Informatik (2016). Dagstuhl-Erklärung. Bildung in der digital

vernetzten Welt. https://gi.de/fileadmin/GI/Hauptseite/Themen/Dagstuhl-

Erkla__rung_2016-03-23.pdf

GEW – Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft (2019). Aktivitäten der

Digitalindustrie im Bildungsbereich.

https://www.gew.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=91790&token=76e262551195

777636f30dc9c5d78ceccf8db8bf&sdownload=&n=DigitalIndustrieBB-2019-A4-

web.pdf

Glotz, P. (1999). Die beschleunigte Gesellschaft. Kulturkämpfe im digitalen Kapitalismus.

München: Kindler.

Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills. In

First Monday 7 (4). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942

Hartong, S., Förschler, A. (2020). Dateninfrastukturen als zunehmend machtvolle

Komponente von Educational Governance. In I. van Ackeren, H. Bremer, F. Kessl,

H.C. Koller, N. Pfaff, C. Rotter, D. Klein, U. Salaschek (Hrsg.), Bewegungen. Beiträge

zum 26. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (pp. 419-

432). Opladen/Berlin/Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich.

Hartong, S. (2020). Algorithmisierung von Bildung – Über schrumpfende Spielräume für

demokratisches (Ver-)Handeln und warum die EdTech-Industrie nicht das einzige

Problem ist. http://denk-doch-mal.de/wp/sigrid-hartong-algorithmisierung-von-

bildung/

Hepp, A. (2020). Deep Mediatization. London: Routledge.

Hug, T., Madritsch, R. (2020): Globale Bildungsindustrie – Erkundungen zum Stand der

Dinge in Österreich. In medienimpulse, 4/2020.

https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/mp/article/view/4320/5203

Imort, P., Niesyto, H. (Hrsg.) (2014). Grundbildung Medien in pädagogischen

Studiengängen. Schriftenreihe Medienpädagogik interdisziplinär, Band 10.

München: Verlag kopaed.

Initiative Keine Bildung ohne Medien! (2019). Frankfurt-Dreieck zur Bildung in der

digital vernetzten Welt. https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/frankfurter-

dreieck/

Iske, S., Fromme, J., Verständig, D., Wilde, K. (Hrsg.) (2020). Big Data, Datafizierung

und digitale Artefakte. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-

28398-8

https://gi.de/fileadmin/GI/Hauptseite/Themen/Dagstuhl-Erkla__rung_2016-03-23.pdf
https://gi.de/fileadmin/GI/Hauptseite/Themen/Dagstuhl-Erkla__rung_2016-03-23.pdf
https://www.gew.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=91790&token=76e262551195777636f30dc9c5d78ceccf8db8bf&sdownload=&n=DigitalIndustrieBB-2019-A4-web.pdf
https://www.gew.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=91790&token=76e262551195777636f30dc9c5d78ceccf8db8bf&sdownload=&n=DigitalIndustrieBB-2019-A4-web.pdf
https://www.gew.de/index.php?eID=dumpFile&t=f&f=91790&token=76e262551195777636f30dc9c5d78ceccf8db8bf&sdownload=&n=DigitalIndustrieBB-2019-A4-web.pdf
https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v7i4.942
http://denk-doch-mal.de/wp/sigrid-hartong-algorithmisierung-von-bildung/
http://denk-doch-mal.de/wp/sigrid-hartong-algorithmisierung-von-bildung/
https://journals.univie.ac.at/index.php/mp/article/view/4320/5203
https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/frankfurter-dreieck/
https://www.keine-bildung-ohne-medien.de/frankfurter-dreieck/
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28398-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-28398-8

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 19

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Knaus, T. (2020). Data Literacy and Technology Criticism – The Case for an Augmented

Understanding of Media Literacy. In Journal of Media Literacy Education (JMLE),

12 (3), 6-16. https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-3-2

Kübler, H.-D. (2018): Was ist und was soll digitale Bildung? In medien + erziehung,

5/2018, 16-24.

Kutscher, N., Iske, S. (2020): Medien und soziale Ungleichheit. In U. Sander, F. v. Gross,

K. Hugger (Hrsg.): Handbuch Medienpädagogik. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. Preprint:

https://lpm.medienbildung.ovgu.de/wp-

content/uploads/2020/11/Iske_Kutscher_2020_HandbuchMP_Medien-

Ungleichheit.pdf

Mansell, R. (2018). Transformative Communication Technologies: The Accountability

Challenge. In T. Hug, P. Missomelius, G. Pallaver (Hrsg.), Kleine Medienreihe,

2/2018 (pp. 45-61). Universität Innsbruck: Innsbruck university press.

Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital. Band I. Hamburg: Otto Meisner.

Mau, S. (2017). Das metrische Wir. Über die Quantifizierung des Sozialen. Berlin:

Suhrkamp.

Moser, Heinz (2018). Medienkritik im Rahmen von Digital Citizenship. In H. Niesyto, H.

Moser (Hrsg.): Medienkritik im digitalen Zeitalter (S. 77-90). München: kopaed.

Münch, R. (2018). Der bildungsindustrielle Komplex. Schule und Unterricht im

Wettbewerbsstaat. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

Nachtwey, O., Seidl, T. (2020) The Solutionist Ethic and the Spirit of Digital Capitalism.

in SocArXiv, 1-51. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/sgjzq

Niesyto, H., Moser, H. (Hrsg.) (2018). Medienkritik im digitalen Zeitalter. Reihe

Medienpädagogik interdisziplinär, Band 11. München: kopaed. https://www.horst-

niesyto.de/band_medienkritik.pdf

Niesyto, H. (2021). ‚Digitale Bildung‘ wird zu einer Einflugschneise für die IT-Wirtschaft.

In medien + erziehung, 1/2021, 23-28. Langfassung: https://horst-niesyto.de/wp-

content/uploads/2021/02/2021_Niesyto_digitale_Bildung_IT-

Wirtschaft_Langfassung.pdf

Niesyto, H. (2020). Medienkritik und Medienpädagogik. In H. Friedrichs-Liesenkötter, L.

Gerhardts, A.-M. Kamin, S. Kröger (Hrsg.), Medienpädagogik als Schlüsseldisziplin

in einer mediatisierten Welt. Perspektiven aus Theorie, Empirie und Praxis,

MedienPädagogik, 37, 23-50. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/37/2020.06.02.X

Niesyto, H. (2017a). Medienpädagogik und digitaler Kapitalismus. Für die Stärkung einer

gesellschafts- und medienkritischen Perspektive. In S. Kommer, T. Junge, C. Rust

(Hrsg.), Tagungsband: Spannungsfelder und blinde Flecken. Medienpädagogik

https://doi.org/10.23860/JMLE-2020-12-3-2
https://lpm.medienbildung.ovgu.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Iske_Kutscher_2020_HandbuchMP_Medien-Ungleichheit.pdf
https://lpm.medienbildung.ovgu.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Iske_Kutscher_2020_HandbuchMP_Medien-Ungleichheit.pdf
https://lpm.medienbildung.ovgu.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Iske_Kutscher_2020_HandbuchMP_Medien-Ungleichheit.pdf
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/sgjzq
https://www.horst-niesyto.de/band_medienkritik.pdf
https://www.horst-niesyto.de/band_medienkritik.pdf
https://horst-niesyto.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021_Niesyto_digitale_Bildung_IT-Wirtschaft_Langfassung.pdf
https://horst-niesyto.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021_Niesyto_digitale_Bildung_IT-Wirtschaft_Langfassung.pdf
https://horst-niesyto.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021_Niesyto_digitale_Bildung_IT-Wirtschaft_Langfassung.pdf
https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/37/2020.06.02.X

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 20

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

zwischen Emanzipationsanspruch und Diskursvermeidung, MedienPädagogik, 27,

1-29, http://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/435.

Niesyto, H. (2017b). Topics and Key Areas in Current Media Pedagogical Discussions. In I.

Nord and H. Zipernovsky (Ed.), Religious Education in a Mediatized World (pp. 171-

188). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Niesyto, H. (2012). Bildungsprozesse unter den Bedingungen medialer Beschleunigung. In

G. Bukow, J. Fromme, B. Jörissen (Hrsg.), Raum, Zeit, Medienbildung. Reihe

Medienbildung und Gesellschaft, Band 23 (47-66). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. New York:

Penguin Press.

Picciano, A. G., Spring, J. H. (2013). The great American education-industrial complex:

ideology, technology, and profit. New York: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120613

Rat für Kulturelle Bildung (2019). Jugend/YouTube/Kulturelle Bildung. Horizont 2019.

Eine repräsentative Umfrage unter 12- bis 19-Jährigen zur Nutzung kultureller

Bildungsangebote an digitalen Kulturorten. https://www.rat-kulturelle-

bildung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Studie_YouTube_Webversion_final.pdf

Reißmann, W. (2014). Mediatisierung – Kommerzialisierung – Ökonomisierung: Sind

aktuelle Medienumgebungen Katalysatoren instrumentellen Denkens und Handelns?

In medien + erziehung, 4/2014, 9-16.

Ring, S. (2020). Digitalisierung – Bildung – Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Werte nachhaltiger

Entwicklung für die Medienpädagogik. In M. Dietrich, B. Friedrich, S. Ring (Hrsg.):

Medien bilden Werte. Digitalisierung als pädagogische Aufgabe (85-91). München:

kopaed.

Rosa, H. (2009). Kapitalismus als Dynamisierungsspirale – Soziologie als

Gesellschaftskritik. In K. Dörre, S. Lessenich, H. Rosa (Hrsg.): Soziologie –

Kapitalismus – Kritik: eine Debatte (pp. 87-125). Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp.

Rosa, H. (2005). Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne.

Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Schiller, D. (1999). Digital Capitalism. Cambridge/London: MIT Press.

https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2415.001.0001

Schluchter, J.-R. (2020). Medienbildung und (Bildung für) nachhaltige Entwicklung. Eine

Annäherung. In medien + erziehung, 5/2020, 67-73.

Schmerr, M. (2019). Ökonomie first? Zur Rolle der Digitalwirtschaft im Bildungsbereich.

MedienConcret, 1/2019, 58-61.

http://www.medienpaed.com/article/view/435
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203120613
https://www.rat-kulturelle-bildung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Studie_YouTube_Webversion_final.pdf
https://www.rat-kulturelle-bildung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Studie_YouTube_Webversion_final.pdf
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2415.001.0001

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education

Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning 21

Vol. 17 – Issue 2 – 2021

Sennett, R. (2007). The Culture of the New Capitalism. London/New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Sennett, R. (1998). Der flexible Mensch. Die Kultur des neuen Kapitalismus. Berlin: Berlin

Verlag.

Singer, N. (2017). How Google Took Over the Classroom. In New York Times, 13.05.2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-

schools.html

Staab, P. (2019). Digitaler Kapitalismus. Markt und Herrschaft in der Ökonomie der

Unknappheit. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Stalder, F. (2018). The Digital Condition. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Trültzsch-Wijnen, C. (2020). Medienhandeln zwischen Kompetenz, Performanz und

Literacy. Wiesbaden: Verlag Springer VS Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

3-658-29534-9

Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft e. V. (Hrsg.) (2018). Digitale Souveränität und

Bildung. Gutachten des Aktionsrat Bildung. Münster: Waxmann.

https://www.aktionsrat-bildung.de/index.php?id=124.

Verger, A., Steiner-Khamsi, G., Lubienski, C. (2017). The emerging global education

industry: analysing market-making in education through market sociology. In

Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15:3, 325-340.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318434543_The_emerging_global_educ

ation_industry_analysing_market-

making_in_education_through_market_sociology

Vogl, J. (2011). Das Gespenst des Kapitals. Zürich: Diaphanes.

Williamson, B., Hogan, A. (2020). Commercialisation and privatisation in/of education

in the context of Covid-19. Brussels: Education International.

https://issuu.com/educationinternational/docs/2020_eiresearch_gr_commercialisa

tion_privatisation

Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. The Fight for a Human Future at

the New Frontier of Power. New York: Hachett Book Group. [German: Zuboff, S.

(2018). Das Zeitalter des Überwachungskapitalismus. Frankfurt/New York:

Campus.]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-schools.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/technology/google-education-chromebooks-schools.html
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29534-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29534-9
https://www.aktionsrat-bildung.de/index.php?id=124
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318434543_The_emerging_global_education_industry_analysing_market-making_in_education_through_market_sociology
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318434543_The_emerging_global_education_industry_analysing_market-making_in_education_through_market_sociology
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318434543_The_emerging_global_education_industry_analysing_market-making_in_education_through_market_sociology
https://issuu.com/educationinternational/docs/2020_eiresearch_gr_commercialisation_privatisation
https://issuu.com/educationinternational/docs/2020_eiresearch_gr_commercialisation_privatisation

Digital Capitalism and Critical Media Education
Abstract
Digital capitalism – selected aspects of analysis
Capitalistic structural principles
Digital structural principles
Affinity between digital and capitalistic structural principles

Digital capitalism – some challenges
The advance of the IT economy in the education sector
Strengthening alternative pathways and critical media education
References