Title: Technorealism–Book Conversation with Mohamed Zayani and Joe F. Khalil on the Digital Double Bind

GJIA: Could you explain what the book is about and share what motivated you to write it?

Joe Khalil (JK): What we set out to do in the book is explore how the digital turn is affecting the Middle East and what promises it holds for the region. So, the book is an attempt to better understand how the region is adapting to fast-paced technological changes and the sociocultural, political, and economic dynamics these transformations have unleashed. The complexity of the changes we have been studying calls for a multidisciplinary approach, and I think in terms of background, we complement each other. We have previously collaborated on various projects that helped us align our perspectives. What facilitated the collaboration is the fact that the Qatar campuses of Northwestern University and Georgetown University are located in adjacent buildings within Education City. We have been constantly exchanging experiences with and reflections about digital transformation as we have come to live it in the region. We realized something noteworthy was happening, and we wanted to try putting our finger on the pulse.

GJIA: How is the digital turn unfolding in the Middle East, and what is unique about the region’s specific trajectory?

Mohamed Zayani (MZ): The adoption of the digital has had profound implications for the region, especially as states engage in efforts to diversify their economies, as the youth bulge expands, and as marginalized groups start to claim their voices. The prevailing narrative is that there are all sorts of promises associated with information and communication technologies—promises that the digital is transformative to the point that it will change society, alter the economy, and reconfigure politics. If you look closer at how the Middle East digital turn is unfolding, you will realize that the adoption of the digital has also brought about certain contradictions that undermine the transformative potential of the digital and complicates our understanding of the relationship between change and stasis. Grappling with these conflictual pulls is what prompted us to develop the concept of the “digital double bind.”

GJIA: What is the “digital double bind,” and why is the book centered around this concept?

JK: There is a tendency to portray the Middle East as either going through revolutionary changes or as being stuck in time. What our work does is eschew such binarism by accounting for this paradoxical relationship between change and stasis. The double bind formulation we articulate reveals how the same forces propelling the region’s digital immersion also inhibit the region’s drive toward meaningful societal change. We challenge binary views of technology and society and offer a nuanced analysis that moves beyond utopian or radical conceptions of change and preconceived ideas about the region as being resistant to change.

MZ: Understanding how societal change occurs is undoubtedly a major undertaking, particularly when one does not have the necessary historical distance to observe trends and analyze developments. At least conceptually, my interest in this question comes partly from my previous research on systems theory. We tried to resist conceiving of change as a straightforward linear path simply because, practically, things did not add up. The region is gearing itself toward the digital and wants to pursue the knowledge economy. At the same time, it is confronted with various impediments. This disjuncture raises several questions: What does it mean to promote digital entrepreneurship and innovation in a context that has long been shaped by conformity? How do you partake in the digital era while insulating yourselves from some of the elements that are central to fostering an enabling ecosystem? How do we explain the fact that some countries have the most advanced digital infrastructure and yet prohibit the use of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or restrict the use of certain popular apps? More broadly, how can states develop digital sovereignty when their digital visions are premised on technology they do not produce and infrastructure they do not control? These are some of the questions that intrigued us as we dug deeper into particular case studies, which then prompted us to re-calibrate our methodologies when thinking about digital trajectories.

GJIA: Can you outline some of the assumptions about digital technology and the Middle East?

JK: It is difficult to disengage common references to the digital from various “imaginaries” that have come to be associated with technology. Typically, the prevailing view of the digital is that it is a technological fix of sorts, and the purported ability of technology to solve all kinds of problems is what makes it particularly appealing. These imaginaries not only define how the general public views the digital but also influence policymaking and, as such, bear strongly on how the digital is introduced, promoted, and supported.

 MZ: The workings of these imaginaries are intricate when considered in the context of a region that has a unique historical legacy, that has undergone particular colonial experiences and post-colonial developments, and that lies at the intersection of other developing regions as well. What is challenging is how to conceive of the digital outside of what is known as the “network society,” which is typically associated with technologically advanced nations. One is bound to be confronted with the question of how to study the digital in the less privileged, less technologically advanced countries of the Global South, which did not experience digital transformation uniformly or in the same way as the West. What we try to do in the book is challenge conventional conceptualizations of the digital by highlighting the limitations of existing frameworks. Practically, we critique prevailing approaches that are constructed around normative benchmarks (such as speed, access, affordances, and digital readiness), which are usually anchored in Western paradigms or based on normative models. These conceptual challenges prompt us to think about the different articulations and manifestations of the digital. Relatedly, it is important to critically probe dominant narratives about what the Middle East is, what it designates, and what it represents. This is of critical importance because, as conventionally used, the term is highly problematic. In the book, we emphasize the pitfalls of defining the Middle East through the assumed binaries of utopia/dystopia, development/underdevelopment, tradition/modernity, and progression/regression. These oversimplified narratives often project a region as either bent on pursuing the network society or trapped in its deep-rooted traditions, being allegedly incompatible with modernity.

GJIA: Can you give us an example of a digital imaginary?

JK: One major debate since the late 2000s concerns e-government, namely how to bring government services to the public using digital infrastructure and tools. At least from the perspective of many policymakers, this is a solution to a wide range of problems, including bureaucratic inefficiency, the lack of transparency, and the prevalence of nepotism. As such, it is promoted as a way to streamline various processes and transform public administration. However, in systems where such practices as patronage and clientelism are as much socioeconomic as they are sociopolitical, the lack of transparency cannot be solved by simply moving operations to the digital realm.

Combined, the prevailing imaginaries of the digital and the societal context within which these imaginaries take hold contribute to contradictory dynamics we tried to put our finger on. While the push to move to online services could force the broader public to get online, many are left behind. If users do not have a computer, cannot afford an internet connection, or do not have the necessary literacy skills, then a digital transformation hurts them more than it benefits them. So, digitization means empowerment and inclusion for some but further marginalization for others.

MZ: I would add that these digital imaginaries are not a one-way process. Oftentimes, they are contested by those who advocate them in the first place. For example, it is not uncommon for various stakeholders to promote the use of technology while at the same time seeking to restrict it when confronted with social panics generated by the use of the technology. It is this interplay that gives rise to the double bind we uncover.

GJIA: How has the region’s socioeconomic and colonial history shaped the ongoing and uneven development of knowledge economies?

JK: It is important to emphasize that the Middle East is not a monolithic entity and that differences in histories and economies shape how people engage with the digital. Similarly, differences in terms of geographies and demographics are important to note when considering things like ICT infrastructure. The choices made at the state level when it comes to digital infrastructure are also important to note. For instance, some states have pioneered 5G networks around the same time as or even before the US while others are still using 3G. And then there is also the question of piracy which was already rampant during the satellite era. Early in the satellite era, in the Gulf region, the paid TV model became a norm. In places like Lebanon, a different system emerged whereby various players pirated the encrypted paid TV signal and distributed it within a neighborhood. That mentality came into play with the transition into streaming. Whereas in the Gulf region streaming has taken root, in the Levant you find hybrid practices whereby Netflix series are delivered to one’s doorstep on a DVD because internet connections are not robust enough.

GJIA: How do all the dynamics come to bear on Middle East geopolitics, both locally and for external stakeholders? How can these dynamics inform our understanding of how the digital turn is unfolding elsewhere?

MZ: The region as a whole is reorienting itself toward the knowledge economy, and the centerpiece of this endeavor is the digital. There is increased competition among key regional, mainly Gulf, players who are positioning themselves as a digital hub. This is evident in their ICT infrastructure development initiatives and their concerted efforts to boost their rankings of internet readiness, among other indicators that would brand them as leading global players, investing in ambitious projects from internet cities to smart cities. These trends need to be understood in the context of regional rivalries, state interests, and geopolitical strategies.

JK: There are also external players that have stakes in the region. The Middle East remains a contested area between external powers, which are themselves leading players in telecommunications and the digital today. For instance, the adoption of 5G and collaborations with Huawei heightened the US’s efforts to reposition itself in the region. This is where the digital figures as not only as infrastructure and economy but also as a political tool. Another example is the emerging great power rivalry. The geographic and geopolitical significance of the Middle East has made it a pivotal node in China’s Belt and Road Initiative and a central node in the US-led Green Corridors Initiative. Currently, Chinese and American companies—as well as other companies from Europe and South Africa—exist in the Middle East and are competing for digital operations within the region. At the same time, they are also invigorating partnerships with local startup companies that have international aspirations, some of which have lured big companies like Amazon and Uber to the region.

GJIA: What were some of the unintended findings of the book?

MZ: One of the things that intrigued us in the course of our research is how digital transformations have spawned techno-cultural geographies that are reshaping traditional conceptions of territoriality. We take up this line of analysis in a sequel to this book project titled Digital Territorialities, which is currently under consideration with Oxford University Press.

… 

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Interview by Itai Abraham.

Mohamed Zayani is an award-winning author and professor of critical theory at Georgetown University. His works include The Digital Double Bind (Oxford UP 2024), Digital Middle East: State and Society in the Information Age (Oxford UP 2018), Bullets and Bulletins: Media and Politics in the Wake of the Arab Uprisings (Oxford UP 2016), and Networked Publics and Digital Contention (Oxford UP 2015; winner of ICA, ISA, NCA, ASA, and AGSS book awards). For more about the author, see explore.georgetown.edu/people/mz92.

Joe F. Khalil is professor of global media at Northwestern University and currently a visiting professor at George Washington University. He is the author and co-author of The Digital Double Bind (Oxford UP 2024), Arab Television Industries (Palgrave 2009), and Arab Satellite Entertainment Television and Public Diplomacy (Smith Richardson 2009). He is also the co-editor of The Handbook of Media and Culture in the Middle East (Wiley-Blackwell 2023) and Culture, Time and Publics in the Arab World (I.B. Tauris 2018). For more about the author, see www.joekhalil.com.

Image credit: The Digital Double Bind (Oxford University Press).