Abstract

As Jenkins' famous "convergence paradigm" shows, the "digital turn" transformed the media sphere in three main directions. First, by facilitating the flux of contents across different platforms. Secondly, by promoting the cooperation among different media industries sectors. third, by allowing the audience's migration from media to media in a constant search for different entertainment experiences. My main general focus revolves around the question of whether our sense of participation to contemporary historical events is effectively being facilitated or not by the media we are using. In particular, my question revolves around the kind of agency that takes place in a communication space where offline and online actions contribute in the same amount in the shaping of the constitutional space of the communication exchange. My main example is the space of Tahrir Square as an example of the 'communicating vessels' dynamic between online and offline spaces which took place there. In fact, if we consider Hayden White, Keith Jenkins's conception of history as the discourse that is accepted and circulated as history within a particular culture and period, then we will conclude there is always a good/bad/contested/partial history. It is 'what counts as history', rather what has some special claim to truth, that we should use as a concept to defne the context of the historical action in which we are moving. The question becomes then what kind of history does the e.g. Facebook/Twitter record from Cairo represent? Does it produce an evidence of participation in what exactly? Should Tahir Square be considered a 'new communication space' which is extended by social media and instant messaging service?