This article attempts to analyze the relation between individual, the machinic systems and capitalist ideology that gets more consolidated with the digital by looking closely at the ways in which the human–machine relation gets standardized through the ‘stabilization’ of technology in what is referred to as Web 2.0. Considering certain aspects of print culture that led to what Foucault refers to as the ‘principles of exclusion’—the way in which discourses delimit itself—the larger cultural economies that involved the production and manipulation of symbols in web is critically re-examined. The print-informed relation of individual and text finds its contemporary ramifications in our understanding and usage of hypertext as HTML. The article traces the crucial stages during the establishment of World Wide Web at the turn of the century and affects the question ‘What is a blogger’ in the same vein that the question ‘What is an Author’ was asked to trace the role that weblog format played in the constitution of ‘access’ to cyberspace. The larger implication of such an enquiry would be to situate ‘cyborg’ subjectivity as one that consolidates human identities as more textual, archived and accessible. The amalgamation of human–machine capacities through the stabilization of material technologies in the digital world concern the governmentality of bodies through HTML, its ideological significations and the praxis that led to its stabilization in the turn of the millennium.
AbbetJ. (1999). Inventing the Internet. Cambridge MA: MIT.
2.
AllenM. (2012a). What was Web 2.0? Versions as the dominant mode of internet history. New Media & Society, 15(2), 260–275.
3.
AllenM. (2012b). Gaining a past, losing a future: Web 2.0 and Internet historicity. Media International Australia, 143(1), 99–109.
4.
AlthusserL. (2001). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses: Notes towards an investigation. Lenin and philosophy and other essays (pp. 85–127). New York: Monthly Review Press.
5.
AndersonB. (1991) Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York: Verso.
6.
AndrejevicM. (2004). The webcam subculture and the digital enclosure. In CouldryN. & McCarthyA. (Eds), Media space, place, scale and culture in a media age. 193–208. New York: Routledge.
7.
AradauC., & BlankeT. (2015). The (Big) data-security assemblage: Knowledge and critique. Big Data and Society, 2(2). doi: 10.1177/2053951715609066, Retrieved 5March2016, from http://bds.sagepub.com/content/2/2/2053951715609066.full.pdf+html
8.
BaehrC., & LangS. M. (2012). Hypertext Theory: Rethinking and reformulating what we know, Web 2.0. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 42(1), 39–56.
9.
BallK., DomenicoM., & NunanD. (2016). Big data surveillance and the body-subject. Body Society. doi: 10.1177/1357034X15624973
10.
BardiniT., & HorvathA. T. (1995). The social construction of the personal computer user. Journal of Communication, 45(3), 40–66.
11.
BargerJ. (1998, January24). Rant: Clueless web publishing. Retrieved on 15September2009. from https://goo.gl/LC8KK6
12.
BarnetB. (2013). Memory machines: The evolution of hypertext. London: Anthem Press.
13.
BaumanZ. (1989). Modernity and the holocaust. New York: Cornell University Press.
14.
BeerD. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media and Society, 11(6), 985–1002.
15.
BeesleyK. (2001). XML: Solution for the future. Business Information Review, 18(2), 35–40.
16.
Berners-LeeT. (1985). Hypertext Markup Language 2.0. Retrieved on 5March2016, from http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec.txt
17.
Berners-LeeT. (2000). Weaving the web: The original design and the ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. New York: Harper Collins.
18.
Berners-LeeT.J, CailliauR, GroffJ. F., PollermannB. (1992). World-Wide Web: The information universe. Electronic Networking: Research, Applications and Policy. 2(1), 52–58.
19.
Berners-LeeT., MasinterL., & McCahillM. (1994). Uniform resource locator. Retrieved on 5March2016, from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1738
20.
Berners-LeeT., BrayT., ConnollyD, CottonP., FieldingR., JeckleM., & WilliamsS. (2004). Architecture of the World Wide Web. W3C Recommendation (Vol. 1). Retrieved on 5March2016, from https://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/
21.
BloodR. (2000, September7). Weblogs: A history and perspective. Rebecca’s Pocket. Retrieved on 15September2009, from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html
22.
BolterJ. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah NJ: Routledge.
23.
BonsuS. K., & PolsaP. (2011). Governmentality at the base-of-the-pyramidJournal of Macromarketing. 31(3), 236–244.
24.
BoydD. (2006). A Blogger’s blog: Exploring the definitions of a medium. Reconstructions. 6.4. Retrieved on 11April2016, from http://reconstruction.eserver.org/Issues/064/boyd.shtml
25.
BoydD., & EllisonN. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
26.
BreckenridgeK., & SimonS. (2013). Registration and recognition: Documenting the person in world history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27.
BullinghamL., & VasconcelosA. C. (2013). The presentation of self in the online world’: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 101–112.
28.
BushV. (1945/1991). As we may think. In NyceJ. & KahnP. (Eds), Memexto hypertext: Vannevar Bush and the mind’s machine. (pp. 85–112). London: Academic Press.
29.
CaluyaG. (2010). The post-panoptic society? Reassessing Foucault in surveillance studies. Social Identities. Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 16(5), 621–633.
30.
CastellsM. (1996/2010). The information age: Economy, society and cultureThe Rise of the Network Society (Vol. 1). Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
31.
CeruzziP. (2003). A history of modern computing. Cambridge MA: MIT.
32.
ChandlerD. (1998). Personal home pages and the construction of identities on the Web. Retrieved on 5March2016, from http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Webident.html
33.
ChiaA. (2012). Welcome to Me-Mart: The politics of user-generated content in personal blogs. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(4), 421–438.
34.
CiccoriccoD. (2003). The contour of a contour. Electronic book review. Retrieved 5March2016, from http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/electropoetics/tropical
35.
ClarkA. (2003). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies and the future of human intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.
36.
ClynesM. E., & KlineN. S. (1995). Cyborgs and space. In GrayC. (Ed.), The cyborg handbook. London: Routledge
37.
CoeckelberghM. (2013). Too close to kill too far to talk: Interpretation and narrative in drone fighting and surveillance in public places. In LeenesR. & KostaE. (Eds), Bridging distances in technology and regulations. Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers.
38.
CohenJ. E. (2007). Cyberspace as/and Space. Columbia Law Review, 107(1), 210–256. Retrieved on 13August2013, from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=898260
39.
ColemanB. (2012). Everything is animated: Pervasive media and the networked subject. Body and Society, 18(1), 79–98.
40.
CoombsJ. H., RenearA. H., & DeRoseS. J. (1987, November30). Markup systems and the future of scholarly text processing. Communications of the ACM, 30, 933–947. Retrieved on 5March2016, from http://xml.coverpages.org/coombs.html
41.
CramptonJ. W. (2003). The political mapping of cyberspace. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP.
42.
DeanJ. (2010). Blog theory: Feedback and capture in the circuits of drive. Cambridge: Polity Press.
43.
DeVossD. (2004). Rereading cyborg (?) women: The visual rhetoric of images of cyborg (and cyber) bodies on the world wide web. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(5), 835–845.
44.
DibbelJ. (2000May3). Portrait of the blogger as a young man. juliandibbel.com. Retrieved 5March2016, from http://www.juliandibbell.com/articles/feed_blogger/
45.
DijckJ. (2009). Wikinomics and its discontents: A critical analysis of Web 2.0 business manifestos. New Media and Society, 11(5), 855–874.
46.
DijckJ. (2013). The culture of connectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
DijckJ., & HackerK. (2003). The digital divide as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. The Information Society, 19(4), 315–326.
48.
DoringN. (2002). Personal homepages on the web: A review of research. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7(3). Retrieved 5March2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00152.x/full
49.
DouglasY. (1993). Social impacts of computing: The framing of hypertext—Revolutionary for whom?Social Science Computer Review, 11(4), 417–428.
50.
DoyleA. (2011). Revisiting the synopticon: Reconsidering Mathiesen’s ‘The viewer society’ in the age of Web 2.0. Theoretical Criminology, 5(3), 283–299.
51.
DusselE. (1993). Eurocentrism and modernity (Introduction to the Frankfurt Lectures). Boundary2, 20(3), 65–76.
52.
EisenstadtS. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.
53.
EkmanU. (2016). Complex ubiquity-effects. (2016). In EkmanU., BolterJ. D., DiazL., SondergaardM., & EngbergM. (Eds), Ubiquitous computing, complexity and culture. New York: Routledge.
54.
ElwellS. J. (2014). The transmediated self: Life between the digital and the analog. Convergence, 20(2), 233–249.
55.
EngelbartD. (1968). Mother of all demos presented by Douglas Engelbart. 9July2012. YouTube. Retrieved 5March2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY
56.
EpsteinC. (2016). Surveillance, privacy and the making of the modern subject: Habeas what kind of Corpus?Body Society. doi:10.1177/1357034X15625339
57.
EvansD. (2011). The Internet of things: How the next evolution of the internet is changing everything. (White Paper). Retrieved 12March2016, from Cisco.com http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/ac79/docs/innov/IoT_IBSG_0411FINAL.pdf
58.
EvensA. (2012). Web 2.0 and the ontology of the digital. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 6(2). Retrieved 5March2016, from http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/6/2/000120/000120.html
59.
FaubionJ. D. (1994). Introduction. In FaubionJames D. (Ed.), Aesthetics, method and epistemology, essential works of Foucault, 1954–1984 (pp. xiii–xiv). New York: New Press.
60.
FlyverbomM. (2015). Sunlight in cyberspace? On transparency as a form of ordering. European Journal of Social Theory, 18(2), 168–184. doi: 10.1177/1368431014555258
61.
FoucaultM. (1981). The order of discourse. In YoungR. & PaulK.. (Eds), Untying the text, A post-structuralist reader (pp. 48–79). Boston: Routledge.
62.
FoucaultM. (1994) What is an author? In FaubionJames D (Ed.), Aesthetics, method and epeistemology: Essential works of Foucault 1954–84 (Vol 2, pp. 205–223). New York: New Press.
63.
FoucaultM. (2000). Governmentality. In FaubionJames D. (Ed.), Trans. HarleyRobert, Power: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 (Vol 3, pp. 201–223). New York: New Press.
64.
FoucaultM. (2002). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London: Routledge Classics.
65.
GallowayA. (2004). Intimations of everyday life: Ubiquitous computing and the city. Cultural Studies, 18(2–3), 384–408.
66.
GillespieT. (2010). The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media and Society, 12(3), 347–364.
67.
GillespieT., BoczkowskiP. J., & FootK. A. (2014) Introduction. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality and society. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
68.
GillisS. (2007). Neither cyborg nor goddess, The impossibilities of cyberfeminism. In GillisS., HowieG., & MunfordR., (Eds), Third wave feminism. A critical exploration. (pp. 168–181). UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
69.
GochenourP. H. (2006). Distributed communities and nodal subjects. New Media and Society, 8(1), 33–51.
70.
GreyC. H., Figueroa-SarrieraH. J., & MentorS. (1995). Introduction. In GrayC. (Ed.), The cyborg handbook. New York: Routledge.
71.
GroebnerV. (2007). Who are you? Identification, deception and surveillance in early modern Europe. Trans. KyburzMark & PeckJohn. NewYork: Zone books.
72.
HaggertyK. D., & EricsonR. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622.
73.
HallM. (1999). Virtual colonization. Journal of Material Culture, 4(1), 39–55.
74.
HansmannU., MerkL., NicklousM. S., & StoberT. (2003). Pervasive computing: The mobile world. UK: Springer.
75.
HarawayD. J. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature (pp.149–181). New York: Routledge.
76.
HarawayD. J. (1995). Cyborgs and symbionts: Living together in the new world order. In GrayC. (Ed.), The cyborg handbook (pp. xi–xix). New York/London: Routledge.
77.
HarawayD. J. (2003). The companion species manifesto: dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
78.
HaylesK. N. (1999). How we Becameposthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature and informatics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
79.
HaylesK. N. (2006). Unfinished work: From cyborg to cognisphere. Theory, culture and society, 23(7–8), 159–166.
80.
HierS. P. (2003). Probing the surveillant assemblage: On the dialectics of surveillance practices as processes of social control. Surveillance and Society, 1(3), 399–411.
81.
HuwsU. (2003). The making of a cybertariat: Virtual work in a real world. In HuwsA. & LeysC. (Eds), The making of a cybertariat: Virtual work in a real world (pp. 152–177). New York: Monthly Review Press.
82.
JacobsenE. K. U. (2012). Unique identification: Inclusion and surveillance in the Indian biometric assemblage. Security Dialogue, 43(5), 457–474.
83.
JohnN. A. (2013). Sharing and Web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media and Society, 15(2), 167–182.
84.
JoyceM. (2000). Othermindedness: The emergence of networked culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
85.
JurgensonN. (2010). Review of OndiTimoner’s ‘We Live in Public’. Surveillance and Society, 8(3), 374–378.
86.
KallinikosJ., AaltonenA., & MartonA. (2010). A theory of digital objects. First Monday. 15(6). Retrieved 5March2016, from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3033/2564
87.
KaplanA. M. & HeinleinM.Users of the world Unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
88.
KatzJ.. E. (2003). Do machines become us?. In KatzJ. (Ed.), Machines that become us: The social context of personal communication technology. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
89.
KimJ. (2012). The institutionalization of YouTube: From user-generated content to professionally generated content. Media Culture Society, 34(1), 53–67.
90.
KlineR., & PinchT. (1996). Users as agents of technological change: The social construction of the automobile in the rural United States. Technology and Culture, 37(4), 763–795.
91.
LandowG. P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.
92.
LauerJ. (2012). Surveillance history and the history of new media: An evidential paradigm. New Media and Society, 14(4), 566–582.
93.
LeonardiP. M. (2010). Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter. First Monday, 15(6). Retrieved on 5March2016, from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3036/2567
94.
LeungL. (2009). User-generated content on the internet: An examination of gratifications, civic engagement and psychological empowerment. New Media and Society, 11(8), 1327–1347.
95.
LevyS. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of computer revolution. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press.
96.
LippertR. (2009). Signs of the surveillant assemblage: Privacy regulation, urban CCTV, and governmentality. Social Legal Studies, 18(4), 505–522.
97.
LippertR., & WilkinsonB. (2010). Capturing crime, criminals and the public’s imagination: Assembling crime stoppers and CCTV surveillance. Crime, media, culture, 6 (2), 131–152.
98.
LovinkG. (2008). Zero comments: Blogging and critical internet culture. New York: Routledge.
99.
LukeT. W. (1998). The politics of digital equality: Access, capability and distribution in cyberspace. In ToulhouseC. & LukeT. W. (Eds), The politics of cyberspace (pp. 120–143). New York and London: Routledge.
100.
LyonD. (2003). Surveillance technology and surveillance society. In MisaT. J., BreyP., & FreenbergA. (Eds), Modernity and technology (pp. 161–184). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
101.
ManovichL. (1999). Database as a symbolic form. Convergence, 5(2), 80–99.
102.
ManovichL. (2003). New media: From Borges to HTML. In Wardrip-FruinN. & MontfortN. (Eds). The new media reader. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
103.
McNeillL., & ZuernJ. D. (2015). Online Lives 2.0: Introduction. Biography, 38(2). Retrieved on 5March2016, from https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/biography/v038/38.2.mcneill.html
104.
MerholzP. (2000, Nov8). Sometimes a blog is just a blog. peterme.com. Retrieved 9April2010, from http://www.peterme.com/browsed/browsed110100.html.
105.
MeadR. (2000, November13) You’ve got blog. The New Yorker. Retrieved 9April2010, from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/11/13/youve-got-blog
106.
MinS. (2010). From the digital divide to the democratic divide: Internet skills, political interest, and the second-level digital divide in political internet use. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(1), 22–35.
107.
ModirL., LingC. G., & Abdul AzizS. B. (2014). Text, hypertext, and hyperfiction: A convergence between poststructuralism and narrative theories. Sage Open. doi: 10.1177/2158244014528915. Retrieved 5March2016, from http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/1/2158244014528915
108.
MossbergerK., TolbertC. J., & StanburyM. S. (2003). Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC.: Georgetown University Press.
109.
NasirM. A. (2016). Weighing Words: On the governmentality of free speech. Social Legal Studies. 25(1), 69–92.
110.
NelsonT. H. (1980/1993). Literary machines. Sausalito: Mindful Press.
111.
NiedererS., & ChabotR. (2015). Deconstructing the cloud: Responses to big data phenomena from social sciences, humanities and the arts. Sage Open. Retrieved on 15March2016, from http://bds.sagepub.com/content/2/2/2053951715594635
112.
NieuwdropE. (2007). The pervasive discourse: An analysis. Computers in Entertainment, Interactive TV. 5(2). Retrieved 5March2016, from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1279540.1279553
113.
O’ReganG. (2008). A brief history of computing. London: Springer.
114.
O’ReillyT. (2005May9). What is web.2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. oreilly.com. Retrieved 5March2016, from http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
115.
PapacharissiZ. (2009). The virtual sphere 2.0: Internet, public sphere and beyond. In ChadwikA. & HowardP. (Eds), Routledge handbook of internet politics. New York: Routledge.
116.
PapacharissiZ. (2010). A private sphere: Democracy in digital age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
117.
ParikkaJ. (2012). What is media archeology?Cambridge: Polity Press.
118.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
119.
PetherickL. (2015). Shaping the child as a healthy child: Health surveillance, schools, and biopedagogies. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 15(5), 361–370.
120.
PfaffenbergerB. (1988). The social meaning of the personal computer: Or, why the personal computer revolution was no revolution. Anthropological Quarterly, 61(1), 39–47.
121.
Pitts-TaylorV. (2010). The plastic brain: Neoliberalism and the neuronal self. Health (London), 14(6), 635–652.
122.
PosterM. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
123.
RaggetD. (1998). A history of HTML. Retrieved on 5March2016, from https://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/book4/ch02.html
124.
ReidJ. (2015). HTML 5 programmer’s reference. New York: Apress.
125.
SilesI. (2011). From online filter to web format: Articulating materiality and meaning in early history of blogs. Social Studies of Science, 41(5). Retrieved on 8January2013, from http://sss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/02/0306312711420190.full.pdf
126.
SilesI. (2012). The rise of blogging: Articulation as a dynamic of technological stabilization. New Media and Society, 14(5), 781–797.
127.
TreborS. (2008, March3). Market ideology and myths of web 2.0. First Monday. 13(3). Retrieved on 5March2016, from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2138/1945
128.
SreekumarT. T. (2015, August). The cyborg and the human: Some thoughts on the posthuman approaches. Paper presented at National Seminar on Cultural Effects and Media Studies, 11–12 August, Newman College, Thodupuzha, Kerala.
129.
SreekumarT. T. (2016). Asian modernity and the posthuman future: Some reflections. In LimS. S. & SorianoC. R. R. (Eds), Asian perspectives on digital culture: Emerging phenomena, enduring concepts (pp. 171–191). New York: Routledge.
130.
SterlingB. (1992). The hacker crackdown: Law and disorder on the electronic frontier. New York: Bantam Books.
131.
StevensonM. (2014). Rethinking the participatory web: A history of HotWired’s ‘new publishing paradigm’, 1994–1997. New Media and Society. doi:10.1177/1461444814555950.
132.
ThomasS. (2006). The end of cyberspace and other surprises. Convergence, 12(4), 383–391.
133.
TurkleS. (2005). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. Cambridge: MIT Press.
134.
TurnerF. (2006). From counterculture to cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the whole earth network and the rise of digital utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
135.
VoithoferR. (2005). Designing new media education research: The materiality of data, representation, and dissemination. Educational Researcher, 34(9), 3–14.
136.
VroomanS. S. (2002). The art of invective: Performing identity in cyberspace. New Media and Society, 4(1), 51–70.
WarrenS. D., & LouisD. B. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.
139.
WarschauerM. (2003). Demystifying the digital divide. Scientific American, 289(2), 42–47.
140.
WeightJ. (2006). A technosocial introduction to creative practice. Convergence, 12(4), 413–446.
141.
YooY. (2012). Digital materiality and the emergence of an evolutionary science of the artificial. In LeonardiP. M., NardiB. A., & KallinikosJ. (Eds), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 134–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
