Platform research is a popular and rapidly expanding field, and as such, while much of the seminal platform scholarship comes from the Global North, we see an increase in case studies focused on other parts of the world (e.g. Mohat & Punathambekar 2019; Lin & De Kloet 2019; Steinberg et al. 2022; Zhang & Chen 2022). Through this expansion, platform scholars multiply frames of reference in understanding of platforms and how they work in different locales. However, when applying existing, Western platform theory to a locale without sufficiently taking into consideration the local economical, political, or cultural specificities of the place, this leads to the generalisation of the theory. With generalisation, I mean taking the now largely commonplace American and European platform theory, based on case studies on Western platforms, and applying it to a local case study outside of the Western sphere without considering the local specifics. To not generalise necessitates a methodological shift in how a lot of scholarship on platforms is being done today. It is important to note that it happens not because of ill intent or bad scholarship, but because the practice has unconsciously become enmeshed in the field.
Following postcolonial theory, a popular move in many areas of media studies is provincialisation. Provincialising, following Dipesh Chakrabarty (2008), means abandoning the longstanding notion of the Europe (and in the case of platform studies in particular, the rest of the Global North) as the standard-bearer of universal values and knowledge production and recognising the specificity of a particular region. As scholars, we have to be mindful that Western knowledge and values may not apply in other local contexts, just as knowledge and values from other local contexts may not apply in the West. Above all, provincialising Europe means abandoning the idea that the West is superior to other parts of the world. In this article, however, I would also like to warn against the shortcomings of provincialisation, and how it could lead to fragmentation, and eventually stagnation, in the field of platform studies.
Inadequately engaging with existing platform scholarship in case studies in the Global South is detrimental to our understanding of platforms, leading to fragmentation, and eventually stagnation, in the field. Platform scholarship in different locales should always be in conversation with each other to learn from both differences and similarities, leading to a more complete understanding of platforms. While I underwrite the importance of multiplying our frames of reference about platforms and their workings in the Global South, we must do so while amplifying the field as a whole.
Let me be clear, I do not seek to attack the practice of provincialisation outright. Rightly so, it is a move underwritten and adopted by many scholars, and has a rich tradition in important postcolonial theory, which I will outline later. However, I do wish to warn against the problems that could arise when provincialising is done too carelessly. In this article, I seek to outline both the need for provincialisation over generalisation, as well as illustrating where provincialisation could become problematic. After doing so, I will exemplify my points by looking at a case study that, in my opinion, threads the needle between generalising and provincialising very well, opening the door to productive, decolonial platform scholarship.
The Pitfalls of Generalising
Most, if not all, academic fields are deeply rooted in Western traditions and language. As Chakrabarty notes, postcolonial thinking (and by extension decolonial thinking) itself exists because the fields of social sciences and humanities originated in Europe and have spread into other local academic contexts elsewhere. But when studying a new locale, the traditions enmeshed in the field, ranging from lexicon, methods, or preconceived conceptions, might not apply there because of cultural or practical reasons. Thus, postcolonial thinking urges us to be mindful of this Western bias and actively work to undo this bias where appropriate. Kuan-Hsing Chen writes about this in regards to Asia studies. “In the past, this field [Asia studies] was seen as having been largely constituted by studies done outside the geographical site of Asia, mainly in the United States and Europe. The emerging phenomenon of Asian studies in Asia seems to suggest that the reintegration of Asia requires a different sort of knowledge production.” (2010, p. 2) Thus, as academic fields move to cover more of the globe, our research practices should reflect this, and not copy and paste the established Western ways.
The difficulty of the postcolonial project lies in the fact that “European thought is at once both indispensable and inadequate in helping us to think through the experiences of political modernity in non-Western nations,” We have to both work to make sense of the local context through the theory we have, as well as see where the theory is insufficient to describe the peculiarity of the locale. Hence, as Chakrabarty continues; “provincializing Europe becomes the task of exploring how [European] thought […] may be renewed from and for the margins.” (2008, p. 16)
All case studies on platforms in a non-Western context are vulnerable to generalising platform theory. Looking at a global platform expanding in other locales is vulnerable to become an extension of platform capitalist theory, while in reality, the platform itself has to structurally adapt to the culture(s), legal and economical climates, and technical implications, such as a lack of bandwidth or internet access. In these kinds of case studies, we see an insufficient amount of engagement with these issues, because the theory is applied in its original, Western form.
In a recent paper, Steinberg, Mukherjee & Zhang raise an example of how to deal with commonplace Western platform theory in a global setting. In their paper, they take Nick Srnicek’s framework of platform capitalism, which is widely recognised and appropriated within platform studies to interpret platforms’ economic workings, and propose a plurification of the term to platform capitalisms “as key to the epistemological shift needed to grasp the multiple effects of platformization on global cultural production” (p. 3). Because of the different workings of platform capitalism in different locales, Steinberg et al. argue speaking of platform capitalisms better covers the varying impact platforms have on different economies.
However, generalisation is not limited to case studies of global platforms in local context. It can also take place when looking at a local platform in a local context. When looking at Chinese megaplatforms for example, it would be impossible to interpret them by only looking at established Western platform scholarship, as they flourish by virtue of China’s economical and political climate, but would not fit in Western climates outlined in Western platform scholarship. Here I would like to point out, however, that an influx of scholarship on Chinese platforms and platforms in China with regard to the relatively unique platform climate is noticeable within platform studies (e.g. Steinberg et al. 2022; Zhang & Chen 2022). So much so that Chinese platform theory is even used to generalise Asian platform studies as a whole, while the Asian continent is home to many different political, economical, and cultural climates irreconcilable with Chinese platform theory, much like it is with Western platform theory, and should be studied accordingly. It can be very othering to assume Western knowledge applies to other locales one to one.
The problems with this generalising universalism also extend to our lexicon. With this, I mean that we should be mindful that different words or concepts mean different things, or have different connotations in other local contexts. Economic growth in Western late capitalist societies is built upon the exploitation of labour and resources in countries in the Global South. Following Chakrabarty (2008, p. 9), the term “late” has a vastly different connotation when applied to low and middle income-countries, compared to the high-income beneficiaries of this exploitation. Platform studies deals with many sides of a locale, be it cultural, economic, or political. Therefore, it is especially important to be mindful of the implications of transferring existing Western concepts and definitions to other contexts without addressing the differences in its workings in its local context. After all, these concepts help us understand how a platform works upon society. If that working changes, then so must our understanding and use of the concept.
Another pitfall of universalising platform theory is that many times, existing, maybe even outdated, platform studies literature is brought up and then not sufficiently scrutinised in light of the localised context. Oftentimes, a paper describes the studied platform and explains how it is a platform often accompanied by some form of definition from North-American or European scholarship (e.g. Srnicek’s aforementioned platform capitalism). However, this does not contribute to multiplying frames of references and is counterproductive to the development of platform studies in a global context. It would be much more interesting and productive to scrutinise and challenge these existing definitions.
Explain why the studied platform according to your chosen definition(s), but more importantly how it challenges established definitions because of its local specificities. In doing this, you further platform scholarship by documenting what the term platform can mean and how they operate differently in a different local context, multiplying frames of reference.
Is Provincialising the Solution?
Recently the field of platform studies, and academia as a whole, has become more mindful of this bias towards Western knowledge. Decolonial theory is starting to appear in many fields, changing the way research is conducted and theory is applied. Deriving from the postcolonial tradition, which was (and continues to be) a project of studying the impact of European colonialism in previously colonised regions, decolonial thinking argues that colonial structures of dominance, oppression, and exploitation still remain, even after independence, and works towards solutions that acknowledge and undo these structures (Yat 2021).
In his book The Darker Sider of Western Modernity Walter Mignolo argues the principles of coloniality persist in Western modernity. The premise of Western modernity is that it is superior to the status quo of countries in the Global South, who should conform to our idea of modernity and the ideas that pertain to it. This includes the theories of the economic and cultural implications of platforms, but as we have seen, in reality, platforms function differently in those locales from the way they work in the West. Therefore, by generalising and glossing over those differences when we apply Western platform theory to other locales one on one, we contribute to this project of modernity, while we should instead seek out the differences and critically re-evaluate the structures of power embedded in our theories.
Provincialising is an important practice stemming from postcolonial thinking. As illustrated in the introduction of this piece, provincialising the West means ceasing to take the values and knowledge stemming from the Western sphere as leading and instead looking at them as specific to that “province” (that region, be it Europe, the US, North America, etc.). In platform studies, this means studying platforms in their local context and not blindly applying Western or Chinese platform logic to them like I have described above. This way, it looks like provincialising is the relatively simple answer to generalising platform theory. If we study platforms in their local context, free from preconceived and generalised knowledge claims of Western of Chinese platform scholarship, we cannot only come up with new ideas on platforms themselves, but also how they intersect with cultural production in that specific context. We can multiply frames of reference and get a better understanding of how platforms affect different locales.
Not only are platforms affected by differences in locales, its users may be impacted by platforms differently from region to region. We also see users develop different practices in how a platform is used that fits better with and is specific to the local context. Issues related to platform theory such as precarity and entrepreneurship can mean very different things in different regions. While becoming a content creator on YouTube or a neo-craftworker selling their handiwork on Etsy might be a respectable in Western parts of the world, while such a career could be looked down upon in other parts of the world. Being aware of these differences and describing how they influence platform workings, as well as how they influence how users use platforms, is valuable for the field of platform studies as a whole.
The Pitfalls of Provincialising
However, as I have warned in the beginning of this article, provincialising itself, and the ensuing focus on regional studies, is not without its own pitfalls either, namely the possibility for fragmentation and, in turn, stagnation in the field. As I noted, Chakrabarty himself is privy to this when he writes it “is impossible to think of anywhere in the world without invoking certain categories and concepts, the genealogies of which go deep into the intellectual and even theological traditions of Europe” (2008, p. 4). While the increasing focus on the Global South is an important move in multiplying our frames of reference on platforms, what can happen is that researchers consider a local case study so separate from existing platform scholarship, they might not sufficiently engage with existing platform theory. When this happens, provincialising is equally counterproductive to the furthering of platform studies as generalisation because it positions the research so far away from the larger discourse that it is no longer in conversation with it. Instead, it could be a valuable addition to the discourse, creating new platform theory on top of the existing theory, not separate from it, and thus lead to a more productive multiplication of frames of reference. Just like generalising, it might be just as othering to the locale of the case study to consider it so different or in isolation from existing platform theory to the point that it does not apply.
It would be more productive to adopt an approach that both acknowledges the work done in Western platform scholarship, as well as addressing the discrepancies where the theory does not apply to the local context. This produces knowledge the rest of the field can build on, updating existing definitions, methods, and results in a way that does justice to the local contexts and chips away at the dominant position of Western platform theory, without fragmentising the field itself.
Case Study
Let me illustrate my points by looking at a case study. In 2019, Jian Lin and Jeroen de Kloet published a paper on the platformization of cultural production in China with a specific focus on Kuaishou, a Chinese short form video platform akin to TikTok, but with a focus on rural youth. While China’s platform infrastructure has been documented at length, the focus on this often disadvantaged group, whom Kuaishou enables to monetise their creative talents, something which might not be possible for many in the Chinese countryside as opposed to those living in cities.
The article starts with an overview of Western theories on platform labour, and then immediately contextualises how these theories work differently in the unique Chinese climate, where the state is very much intertwined with economics and commerce, especially in the digital realm (2019, p. 4). The Cyberspace Affairs Commission is covered, a bespoke Chinese governmental ethics organ that keeps an eye on the content on platforms in China. Circumstances like these are important to the way platforms operate and are used in a locale, but, as illustrated here, Western platform theory can still be applied, albeit with care and attention to the contextual differences. Lin and De Kloet make their project clear from the outset: ”We distance ourselves from viewing digital labour solely in terms of exploitation and precarity” (2019, p. 2). What they reject here is the notion in Western platform scholarship where digital labour is viewed as something to be weary of. In the case of Kuaishou, however, the authors see that the platform creates a creative environment for young people living in rural places where cultural expression is not always appreciated. On top of this, they see these creative efforts being rewarded monetarily. So on the one hand, Lin and De Kloet work with Western understandings of platforms and platform labour, but acknowledge where these understandings fall short. Platform labour, at least on Kuaishou, does not have to be precarious as we know it to be in the West, precisely because of its workings in a local cultural and economical context.
Conclusion
As I stated in the introduction, I do not wish to critique provincialisation in general. Is is an important move in many academic fields underwritten by many notable decolonical scholars.
Moreover, what happens when we fail to provincialise and blindly take existing, Western platform scholarship as true in any local context, the field fails to further itself.
But as I illustrated, provinicialisation has its dangers, too. I invite you to be critical of Western platform theory, but not fall into scepticism. It is perfectly fine to disagree with it or find it inadequately applicable to your case study, but placing your research outside of the existing discourse, fragmentation and eventually stagnation may appear, which does not contribute to the decolonialisation of platform studies.
Let me end on a quote from a decolonial manifesto by Nicholas Mirzoeff and Jack Halberstam that captures my point precisely, but in more polemic terms. “Read the masters and the enslaved; learn from both. Learn the tradition you seek to oppose; know the master you seek to overthrow.” In our quest to decolonise platform studies, let us not lose sight of the work already done. Multiply the frames of reference in the field, but also amplify it as a whole. Learn where its shortcomings lie and fill in those gaps in the knowledge, without dismissing it outright. Stay curious.
Author Bio
Max van Veen is a research master’s student and teaching assistant in the department of Media Studies at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests include online sexuality and gender representation, disinformation, and the materiality of media and how it influences the behaviour of its users and consumers.
Works Cited
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2008. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press.
Chen, Kuan-Hsing. 2010. Asia as method. Duke University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/ 10.1215/9780822391692.
Lin, Jian, en Jeroen De Kloet. 2019. “Platformization of the unlikely creative class: Kuaishou and Chinese digital cultural production”. Social media and society 5 (4): 205630511988343. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2056305119883430.
Him, Yat. 2021. “Decolonial? Postcolonial? What Does It Mean to ‘Decolonise Ourselves’? – Decolonising Modern Languages and Cultures”. 21 januari 2021. https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/ decolonisesml/2021/01/21/decolonial-postcolonial-what-does-it-mean-to-decolonise- ourselves/.
Mignolo, Walter. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Duke University Press.
Mirzoeff, Nicholas, en Jack Halberstam. 2018. “Decolonize media: tactics, manifestos, histories”.
Journal of Cinema and Media Studies 57 (4): 120–23. https://doi.org/10.1353/ cj.2018.0054.
Mohan, Sriram, and Aswin Punathambekar. 2018. “Localizing YouTube: Language, Cultural Regions, and Digital Platforms.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 22 (3): 317–33. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1367877918794681.
Steinberg, Marc, Rahul Mukherjee, en Aswin Punathambekar. 2022. “Media power in digital Asia: super apps and megacorps”. Media, Culture & Society 44 (8): 1405–19. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/01634437221127805.
Steinberg, M., Zhang, L., & Mukherjee, R. (2024). Platform capitalisms and platform cultures. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/13678779231223544
Srnicek, Nick. 2017. Platform Capitalism. Boston: Polity.
Zhang, Lin, en Julie Yujie Chen. 2022. “A regional and historical approach to platform capitalism: the cases of Alibaba and Tencent”. Media, Culture & Society 44 (8): 1454–72. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/01634437221127796.
