This paper explores how infrastructural ideologies function as tools in geopolitical struggles for dependence and independence between world powers. Meese et al. (2020) suggest that controversies around 5G stem from infrastructural anxieties best examined in the framework of geopolitics. We build on this work by analysing the emerging infrastructural ideology and sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff and Kim, 2015) of 5G in light of the changing global division of labour. Sociotechnical imaginaries refer to the vision of technologies themselves, while ideologies refer to the totality of social relations, translating the objective reality of material conditions to subjective lived experience (Bory, 2020). The Western imaginaries around 5G infrastructures reflect, deflect, translate and sublimate the infrastructural anxieties tied to the development and deployment of new network paradigms by China as an emerging hegemon. The controversial nature, contradictory content and fragmented presentation of 5G is a necessary part of living through the trauma of lost historical agency on the part of Western superpowers. We engaged in code ethnography (Rosa, 2022) of GSM, internet and 5G technologies, as well as participant observation in the main standard-development organisations of the internet and 5G. Our methodological assumption, taken from world systems theory (Wallerstein, 2004), is that the character and content of imaginaries and their underpinning ideologies creatively translate the position of actors in the global division of labour. This paper contributes to the understanding of the role of media infrastructures in geopolitical power tussles and straddles the fields of materialist media studies, science and technology studies and international relations.
BrakeD. (2018). Economic competitiveness and national security dynamics in the race for 5G between the United States and China. Proceedings of TPRC: The 46th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy in the SSRN Electronic Journal (vol. 46). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3142229
CarrM. (2012). The political history of the internet: A theoretical approach to the implications of U.S. Power. In CostiganS. S.PerryJ. (Eds.), Cyberspaces and Global Affairs (pp. 173−188). Ashgate.
13.
CastellsM. (2009). The rise of the network society. Second edition, with a new preface. In The information Age (Vol. 1). Wiley-Blackwell.
14.
CaudwellC. (2017). The Crisis in Physics. Verso.
15.
ChoudhuryD. K. L. (2010). Telegraphic Imperialism: Crisis and Panic in the Indian Empire, c. 1830-1920. Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
CohenS. B. (2002). Geopolitics of the World System. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
DourishP. (2017). The Stuff of Bits: An Essay on the Materialities of Information. MIT Press.
20.
EdwardsP. N. (1996). The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. MIT Press.
21.
FreulerJ. O. (2023). The weaponization of private corporate infrastructure: Internet fragmentation and coercive diplomacy in the 21st century. Global Media and China, 8(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/20594364221139729
22.
GabrysJ. (2022, September). The Future Is Phygital: 5G in Smart Cities and Smart Forests [Conference presentation]. Forests of Antennas, Oceans of Waves: An Exploration of Art and Theory in Electromagnetic Urban Environments. Berlin. Antennenozeane. https://antennenozeane.de/en/programme/.
23.
GoldsmithJ.WuT. (2008). Who controls the internet?Illusions of a Borderless World (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.
24.
GramsciA. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. International Publishers.
KammererP. (2010). Off the leash: The European mobile phone standard (GSM) as a transnational telecommunications infrastructure. In BadenochA.FickerA. (Eds.), Materializing Europe: Transnational infrastructures and the project of Europe (pp. 202–224). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230292314
36.
LemstraW. (2018). Leadership with 5G in Europe: Two contrasting images of the future, with policy and regulatory implications. Telecommunications Policy, 42(8), 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.02.003
37.
LiM. (2008). The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy. Pluto Press.
MarkoffJ. (2005). What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counter Culture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry. Penguin.
40.
MedinaE. (2014). Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and Politics in Allende’s Chile. MIT Press.
41.
MeeseJ.FrithJ.WilkenR. (2020). COVID-19, 5G conspiracies and infrastructural futures. Media International Australia, 177(1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X20952165
42.
NanniR. (2021). The ‘China’ question in mobile internet standard-making: Insights from expert interviews. Telecommunications Policy, 45(6), 102151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102151
NobleD. F. (1977). America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism (1st ed.). Knopf.
45.
O’HaraK.HallW. (2021). Four Internets: Data, Geopolitics and the Governance of Cyberspace. Oxford University Press.
46.
PetersB. (2016). How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet. MIT Press.
47.
RaduR.AmonC. (2021). The governance of 5G infrastructure: Between path dependency and risk-based approaches. Journal of Cybersecurity, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyab017
48.
RheingoldH. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley.
49.
RosaF. R. (2022). Code ethnography and the materiality of power in internet governance. Qualitative Sociology, 45(3), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-022-09517-3
50.
RossiterN. (2016). Software, Infrastructure, Labor: A Media Theory of Logistical Nightmares. Routledge.
51.
RussellA. L. (2014). Open standards and the digital Age: History, ideology, and networks. In Cambridge studies in the emergence of global enterprise (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
ShahN.RajadhyaskhaA.HasanN. (2022). Overload, Creep, Excess: An Internet from India (vol. 45). Institute of Network Cultures. https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/19266
SöderbergJ. (2017). The genealogy of ‘empirical post-structuralist’ STS, retold in two conjunctures: The legacy of Hegel and althusser. Science as Culture, 26(2), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2016.1223029
TekirG. (2020). Huawei, 5G network and digital geopolitics. International Journal of Politics and Security, 2(4), 113–135.
59.
ten OeverN. (2023). 5G and the notion of network ideology, or: The limitations of sociotechnical imaginaries. Telecommunications Policy, 47(5), 102442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102442
60.
ten OeverN.MaxigasSteffenB.MaragkouE.ProvendierE.BreuerE.LombardiG. (2021). Infodemic 5G: How interpretative frames are co-articulated on social media? An instagram versus parler case study. https://wiki.digitalmethods.net/Dmi/WinterSchool2021Infodemic5G
61.
ten OeverN.MilanS. (2022). The making of international communication standards: Towards a theory of power in standardization. Journal of Standardisation, 1. https://doi.org/10.18757/jos.2022.6205
62.
TurnerF. (2006). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press.
63.
WagenknechtS.KornM. (2016). Hacking as transgressive infrastructuring: Mobile phone networks and the German chaos computer club. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM). https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820027
64.
WallersteinI. (1991). Geopolitics and geoculture: Essays on the changing world-system. Studies in Modern Capitalism - Edudes Sur Le Capitalisme Moderne. Cambridge University Press.
65.
WallersteinI. (2004). World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction. Duke University Press.
66.
WenY. (2020). The Huawei Model: The Rise of China’s Technology Giant. University of Illinois Press.
WinterT. (2022). Geocultural power and the digital silk roads. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 40(5), 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758221118569
70.
WyattS.HenwoodF.HartA.SmithJ. (2005). The digital divide, health information and everyday life. New Media & Society & Society, 7(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444805050747
71.
XavierS. (1969). Learning from below: Theorising global governance through ethnographies and critical reflections from the global south. The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 33(3), 229–255. https://doi.org/10.22329/wyaj.v33i3.4918
72.
YangY.-hongGaoP.ZhouH. (2023). Understanding the evolution of China’s standardization policy system. Telecommunications Policy, 47(2), 102478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102478
73.
ZajáczR. (2019). Reluctant Power: Networks, Corporations, and the Struggle for Global Governance in the Early 20th Century. MIT Press.
74.
ŽižekS. (2008). The Sublime Object of Ideology. Verso.
