See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315665332

New Media and the Economy of Tribalism

Article · March 2017

CITATIONS READS
0 1,705

1 author:

Islam Muhammad
University of Gothenburg
18 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tapping into Election Campaign Manifestos from Political Communication Perspectives View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Islam Muhammad on 27 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 TALLINN UNIVERSITY
BALTIC FILM, MEDIA, ARTS AND COMMUNICATION SCHOOL

NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

PREPARED BY: ISLAM MUHAMMAD

MARCH 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 3

WHAT IS NEW IN NEW MEDIA? ................................................................................... 4

THE COLLECTIVE IDENTITY THESIS ......................................................................... 6

MONETISING TRIBALISM ............................................................................................. 7

THE OTHER SIDE OF DIGITAL TRIBALISM ............................................................... 8

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 9

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................ i
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

INTRODUCTION

Maffesoli argues that mass culture has disintegrated within today’s society and that the

social order is now constructed through scattered tribal groupings, organised around the brand-

names and sound-bites of fan culture (Maffesoli, 1996). The emergence of new and social media

allowed cracks of disintegration within the society to flourish and tribalism ideologies to float to

the surface posing a threat to the existence of mass society (Musa & Willis, 2014). Furthermore,

Marinaccio argues that online media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have easily become

the symbolic haven for this new form of tribalism, given their empirical and quantifiable nature

(Marinaccio, 2016). This new form of tribalism is not merely constructed based on the classic

ethnic, religious, or geographic ideologies but rather on emotions, on certain lifestyles, political

ideologies, hobbies, brands, among others (A. Taute & Sierra, 2014). It prompts a gateway to

business to exploit, using internet technologies, these new media instigated tribes and niche

markets, creating the service and products specifically tailored to their interests and needs (Burke,

2008). Andreson argues that the emerging digital economy is going to be radically different from

today’s mass market, focusing more on exploiting untapped niche markets, treating customers as

individuals, offering them rapid, full, and self-tailored customisation as an alternative to mass-

market attitude (Anderson, 2008).

In this paper, we shall examine how new media is creating tribalism online and the

economic effect of such new form of tribalism, how mew media and digital marketing is

monetising triabalism. It will further explore how this trend affects other aspects of society. The

examination will be based on literature from the sociology, economy and communication

disciplines.

3
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

WHAT IS NEW IN NEW MEDIA?

Hoskins, McFadyen, and Finn argue that new media has offered many opportunities for

the global economy to flourish, by utilising internet technologies to diversify the market and reach

wide range of customers all over the globe (Hoskins, McFadyen, & Finn, 2004). Before going into

new tribalism and its economy, we need first to understand what ‘new media’ is, and what makes

it new, a what we know as traditional media today as old, and what characteristics is has that

resulted in created this neotribalism.

The available literature doesn’t entirely agree on a firm universal definition on what ‘new

media’ is, although it first appeared in the 60’s of last century (McLuhan, 1960). There is a lot

controversy amongst media scholars with regards to defining the newness in ‘new media’. As the

term ‘new’ the scholars of the last century set is not new nowadays, and the ‘new; we talk about

today will not be the ‘new’ in the future (Park, Jankowski, & Jones, 2011). All of a sudden, a new

scholarship titled the ‘History of New Media’ emerges. It represents a very contradictory and

confusing term. Eventually, it appears that it is not easy to define new media as it is in a

continuously evolving process (Socha & Eber-Schmid, 2014). However, there are some classical

definitions for ‘new media’. Manovich described new media as a representation of the shift of all

cultures to computer-mediated forms of production, distribution, and communication (Manovich,

2001). Silverstone defined it in social terms, contesting the new as being always new (Silverstone,

1999). He further explained by saying that the technologies that have emerged in during the last

decade, primarily but not exclusively digital technologies, are new, as they offer and do new things

(Silverstone, 2007). New media provide us with new powers, by creating new consequences for

us as individuals. They bend minds, transform institutions, liberate, and oppress at the same time

(Silverstone, 1999).

4
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

Peters challenged this traditional definitions and presented two options for defining ‘new

media’, challenging the ‘newness’ in ‘new media’ (B. Peters, 2009). In his first take, he explained

that ‘new media’ can be defined as emerging information and communication technologies (ICTs)

undergoing a historical process of contestation, negotiation and institutionalisation, focusing or the

rapid development of ICTs. In his second take, he stated that ‘new media’ are the media we have

knowledge of or are unable to explain its functionality yet.

Furthermore, Peters using the work of (Hippel, 1988, 2005; Rogers, 2003; Schumpeter,

1934; Stober, 2004; Wiener, 1994) eloquently explained how modern media pass through phases

of change from new to no longer new:

1. technical invention – during which media are rarely recognised as ‘new’ and usually

thought of as ‘old plus’;

2. cultural innovation – during which media develop new social uses;

3. legal regulation – during which the interested parties explicitly;

4. contest and negotiate for media power;

5. economic distribution – which continues until media become;

6. social mainstream – the point at which media are no longer new.

I tend to agree with Peters on his take, and hence using the term ‘new media’ is somehow

vague because of its continuous evolution. Nevertheless, for the sake of this paper, we will employ

the definition and featured applied by Lister, Dovery, Giddings, Grant and Kelly in their book New

Media: A Critical Analysis. They presented these features as digital, interactive, hypertextual,

virtual, networked, and simulated (Lister, Dovey, Giddings, Grant, & Kelly, 2009).

5
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

THE COLLECTIVE IDENTITY THESIS

To understand the term ‘new tribalism’, we need to look at what constitutes it and what

makes it different from classical tribalism. But first, we need to agree at what scholarship

methodology we will follow throughout the remaining of this paper. Lievrouw and Livingstone

said that there are two types of new media scholars. The first type are those concerned with

technological, economic, or behavioural issues who tend to look at new media in terms of system

features and services, industry structures and ownership, or the psychology of media users,

respectively. On the contrary, the second type of scholars are the critical and cultural scholars who

look at new media content and its form (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2006). We will go mainly with

the first type as it is more appropriate to tackle the subject at hands.

Alberto Melucci was the first to introduce the term ‘collective identity’ and hence neo-

tribalism as opposed to classical tribalism and the understanding of the development of new social

movements. Melucci contested that ‘collective identity’ is a reciprocal and shared definition

produced by several interacting individuals who are keen on the orientation of their action as well

as the pool of opportunities and constraints in which their action occurs (Melucci, 1989, 1996).

Hunt and Benford stated that the one important line of inquiry that aims at understanding how a

feeling of cohesion that leads to the collective action of social movements, is centred on the

concept of Melucci’s collective identity thesis (Hunt & Benford, 2004). Flesher Fominaya said the

argument of collective identity is not unique to social movement studies. It is also used in studies

on nationalism, religion, management, political culture, electoral behaviour, organisational theory

and psychology, among others (Flesher Fominaya, 2010).

6
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

Gots said that the difference now is that the burst of new media. The outpouring of

specialised, targeted cable channels, websites and social networks has resulted in creating

unprecedented opportunities for cultural and social cross-pollination. It also has led to locking

ourselves up in subcultural dungeons, listening endlessly to echoes of what we already accept,

creating digital online tribes roaming around a collective identity we created for ourselves (Gots,

2015).

MONETISING TRIBALISM

Anderson introduced in 2008 his theory the ‘long tail’, defining it a culture unfiltered by

economic scarcity. Marketers and economists who believe in the ‘long tail’ theory argue that

neotribalism and segmentation of consumers are good for the economy. Anderson argued that the

capacity of networked communications to connect with a multiplicity of niche markets and digital

tribes ensures that lower volume products can attain a sustainable margin of profitability

(Anderson, 2008). The explosion of content created by lower barriers to entry into the media

marketplace makes it possible for many more of us to become niche consumers (Lister et al., 2009).

Hills and Jenkins on the ‘Fan Culture and Long Tail Cultural Consumption’ argued that the

emergence of subcultures and fans have always inhabited ‘niche’ cultural zones any led to the

creation of informal communication networks (Hills, 2002; Jenkins, 2008). Those fragmented

groups who exist online and who form this new kind of tribes share a collective identity that guides

their actions and perpetuates an environment when demand and supply meet. Fragmentation seems

in some way to be one of the important features of new media and a useful asset to digital economy

(Lister et al., 2009). New media provides the necessary tools and platforms to the creation of these

new tribes. It also offers unprecedented opportunities for business to be able to have direct access

to them and the niche markets they constitute. Andy Yang, CEO, PlayHaven said that “The key to

7
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

maximising revenue is understanding who your users are, where they are in the lifecycle of your

game, and how to manage them accordingly.” (Yang, 2012). New and social media offer a way to

understand one’s behaviour online, monitor it and analyse it to provide the users with the products

and services they need. The concept of Big Data is a big thing now, not only for marketers and

economists, but also governments (national and foreign) among others (Bonneau, 2015). It helps

to create the political personas, social persona, and the economic persona to influence you either

adapting a social behaviour, buying a product, or challenging your political views and affiliation.

Herrnstein and Murray’s famous Bell Curve about class structure/voting

behaviour/political affiliation is somehow used to help create the political personas of the targeted

public (Herrnstein & Murray, 1996). Using segmentation of that curve contributes to understand

your personas, decide upon the kind of message you want to convey and the channel you want to

use. The ultimate aim for marketing to gain customers loyalty and increase their conversion rate

is to move the peak of the curve towards your position on the horizontal line, skewing the curve

(Burke, 2008).

Hence digital tribes with what they constitute as collective identity and a persona is an

excellent opportunity for businesses. The algorithm of social media websites allows marketers to

have direct access to their target audiences according to the personas they created.

THE OTHER SIDE OF DIGITAL TRIBALISM

If we have concluded that tribalism is good for the economy, we cannot reach the same

conclusion for its effect on society as a whole. The fragmentation of the society into tribes due to

the information and technological advancement and the democratisation of the media has hindered

the stability of the mass society as we know it. New media has provided tools and platforms that

8
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

resulted in the increase of polarisation and individualism within the society (Baum & Groeling,

2008). The algorithm of social media platforms has made us live in a bubble surrounded by only

those who speak the same language as us, have the same interests and ideology as us, and deterred

away those who don’t share our views. It has made us susceptible to whoever disguise their

message with our ideology, so we don’t question their authenticity (M. A. Peters, 2017). This issue

resulted in the rise of fake news. Neotribalism online has made it possible for Fake News to spike.

Everyone online believes whatever comes from their circles. Whatever being posted or shared,

without questioning its authenticity and that shows a big downside of the ‘collective identity’ we

talked about earlier in this paper. The ‘fake news’ phenomena is a result of our Like, Comment

and Share culture. New and Social Media has played a significant role in giving the floor to Fake

News to invade our social media newsfeed (Albright, 2016). Fake News websites seek revenue

and/or political dominance. Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Nevertheless,

democracy demands media literacy. And in this particular moment in time, it requires a serious

investment by newsrooms and by tech giants like Facebook and Google to investment in news

literacy (Stelter, 2017).

CONCLUSION

The question here, are we becoming more close-minded, crazy, living our lives through a

self-made lens, trapped in our white-picket fence? We have become so comfortable as we live in

a bubble created by yourself and new media. We have become so comfortable, as we cannot see

the trouble out there. The digital [economic] order is downstream of our communal order (Hendrix,

2016). Tribalism may be good for the economy, but it is not perfect for our community cohesion

and social security. If no measures are in place, this may lead to more polarisation and social

instability and hate.

9
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Taute, H., & Sierra, J. (2014). Brand tribalism: an anthropological perspective. Journal of

Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 2–15. http://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0340

Albright, J. (2016). Left + Right: The Combined Post-#Election2016 News “Ecosystem.”

Retrieved March 7, 2017, from https://medium.com/@d1gi/left-right-the-combined-post-

election2016-news-ecosystem-42fc358fbc96#.sutoqhz5m

Anderson, C. (2008). The long tail : why the future of business is selling less of more. Hyperion.

Baum, M., & Groeling, M. (2008). New Media and the Polarization of American Political

Discourse. Political Communication, 25(4), 345–365. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248988327_New_Media_and_the_Polarization_of

_American_Political_Discourse

Bonneau, V. (2015). Data Monetisation: Opportunities beyond OTT: finance, retail, telecom and

connected objects. Communications & Strategies, 97, 123–126,151. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/1678885886?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/

sid:primo&accountid=13827

Burke, L. (2008). Niche internet marketing! : the secrets to exploiting untapped niche markets and

unleashing a tsunami of cash while you kick back and relax. Leigh Burke. Retrieved from

https://books.google.ee/books?id=66kCLwAACAAJ&dq=niche+market&hl=en&sa=X&re

dir_esc=y

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1996). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in

American Life. Simon & Schuster.

i
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

Hoskins, C., McFadyen, S., & Finn, A. (2004). Media Economics: Applying Economics to New

and Traditional Media. Sage Publications.

Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes : the decline of individualism in mass society. Sage.

Retrieved from https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/afr/the-time-of-the-tribes/book203275

Marinaccio, M. (2016). In the Wake of Digital Tribalism, Institutions Are More and More Useless.

Retrieved March 7, 2017, from https://the-politic.com/digital-tribalism-

6caf30cf0484#.n1spbh38o

Musa, B., & Willis, J. (2014). From Twitter to Tahrir Square: Ethics in Social and New Media

Communication. Retrieved from

https://books.google.ee/books?id=D2VyBAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA289&lpg=RA1-

PA289&dq=new+media+disintegrating+society&source=bl&ots=QWA2cMOki0&sig=hw9

nEy_Q7LP-BOnTr_nvuoCaGRE&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=new media

disintegrating society&f=false

Peters, B. (2009). And lead us not into thinking the new is new: a bibliographic case for new media

history. New Media & Society, 11(1–2), 13–30. http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444808099572

Peters, M. A. (2017). Post-truth and fake news. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1.

http://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1288782

Silverstone, R. (1999). What’s new about new media? New Media & Society, 1(10), 10–82.

http://doi.org/10.1177/1461444899001001002

Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality : on the rise of the mediapolis. Polity Press.

Yang, A. (2012). PlayHaven Introduces Game-Changing Free User Segmentation Tools to Help

ii
 NEW MEDIA AND THE ECONOMY OF TRIBALISM

Mobile Developers Boost Lifetime Value of Games. Retrieved March 7, 2017, from

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/playhaven-introduces-game-changing-free-user-

segmentation-tools-help-mobile-developers-1733537.htm

iii

View publication stats