The Rhetoric of Imaginaries: How Creators, Ex-Creators, and Critics of Recent Media Technology Imagine the Future of Technological Transformation. An Analysis of Statements Made in Critical Documentaries from 2015–2021

Katarzyna Kopecka-Piech; Jeannine Teichert

doi:10.18290/rns2025.0010

Published : 2025-03-31

Vol. 53 No. 1 (2025)

The Rhetoric of Imaginaries: How Creators, Ex-Creators, and Critics of Recent Media Technology Imagine the Future of Technological Transformation. An Analysis of Statements Made in Critical Documentaries from 2015–2021

Katarzyna Kopecka-Piech

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9973-4423

Jeannine Teichert

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7571-891X

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/rns2025.0010

Abstract

This study analyses future technological imaginaries by combining Aristotle’s three modes of expression and the rhetorical triangle with a modality matrix of rhetorical mappings of Raven and Elahi. The goal was to identify the narratives that shape the logos, ethos, and pathos of three groups of communicators in documentary films: creators, former creators, and critics of technologies. The study used a content analysis of the statements made by representatives of all three groups in eight critical documentaries on the future of technological development from 2015–2021. We extracted key categories for the logos, pathos and ethos of each speaker group. Most are dystopian. We argue that future research should critically rethink whether continuous observation of the tech elite from the sideline will do justice to the potential fulfillment of their prophecies.

Keywords:

media technology, technology imaginaries, sociotechnical imaginaries, future rhetoric, digital rhetoric

Details

References

Statistics

Authors

Download files

pdf

Altmetric indicators

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Aristotle (1991), On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, trans. G. Kennedy, New York: Oxford University Press.

Barbrook R. and Cameron A. (1996), The Californian Ideology, Science as Culture 6, no. 1, p. 44-72, https://doi.org/10.1080/09505439609526455.

Bareis J. and Katzenbach C. (2022), Talking AI Into Being: The Narratives and Imaginaries of National AI Strategies and Their Performative Politics, Science, Technology, & Human Values 47, no. 5, p. 855-881. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439211030007.

Binder W. (2019), Social Imaginaries and the Limits of Differential Meaning, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 44, no. 2, pp. 17-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-019-00371-2.

Christof K. (2017), The Citizen Professional, Mediatization, and the Creation of a Public Domain, Culture Unbound 9, no. 3, pp. 279-306. http://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.1793279.

Fickers A. (2012), Visibly Audible: The Radio Dial as Mediating Interface, [in:] T. Pinch and K. Bijsterveld (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sound Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 411-439, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195388947.013.1001.

Flichy P. (2007), The Internet Imaginaire. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hong Sun-ha (2021), Technofutures in Stasis: Smart Machines, Ubiquitous Computing, and the Future That Keeps Coming Back, International Journal of Communication 15, pp. 1940-1960, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/15697.

Jasanoff S. and Kim S.-H. (2009), Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea, Minerva 47, pp. 119-146, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9124-4.

Jewitt C., Price S., Mackley K.L., Yiannoutsou, N., and Atkinson D. (2020), Interdisciplinary Insights for Digital Touch Communication, Cham: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24564-1.

Jorge A., Amaral I., and de Matos Alves A. (2022), “Time Well Spent”: The Ideology of Temporal Disconnection as a Means for Digital Well-Being, International Journal of Communication 16, pp. 1551-1572, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/18148.

Kazansky B. and Milan S. (2021), “Bodies Not Templates”: Contesting Dominant Algorithmic Imaginaries, New Media & Society 23, no. 2, pp. 363-381, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929316.

Lupton D. (2020), Thinking With Care About Personal Data Profiling: A More-Than-Human Approach, International Journal of Communication 14, pp. 3165-3183, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13540.

Natale S. and Balbi G. (2014), Media and the Imaginary in History. The Role of the Fantastic in Different Stages of Media Change, Media History 20, no. 2, pp. 203-218, https://doi.org/10.1080/13688804.2014.898904.

Nye, D. (2004), Technological Prediction: A Promethean Problem, [in:] M. Sturken, D. Thomas and S. Ball-Rokeach (eds.), Technological Visions: The Hopes and Fears that Shape New Technologies, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 159-176.

Raven P. G. and Elahi S. (2015), The New Narrative: Applying Narratology to the Shaping of Futures Outputs, Futures 74, pp. 49-61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2015.09.003.

de Sola Pool I., Decker C., Dizard S., Israel K., Rubin P., and Weinstein B. (1977), Foresight and Hindsight: The Case of the Telephone, [in:] I. de Sola Pool (ed.), The Social Impact of the Telephone, Cambridge, MA–London: MIT Press, pp. 127-157.

Sutko D., Lingel J., Adams A., and Rottinghaus A. R. (2016), The Medium Is the Message of the Future: Tyranny of Media in Organizing Our Imaginary, International Journal of Communication 10, pp. 5710-5720, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/6168.

Taylor C. (2003), Modern Social Imaginaries, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Tindale C. W. (2004), Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice, Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Wyatt S. (2021), Metaphors in Critical Internet and Digital Media Studies, New Media & Society 23, no. 2, pp. 406-416, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820929324.