858081

research-article2019
NMS0010.1177/1461444819858081new media & societyKannengießer

Article

new media & society

Engaging with and

2020, Vol. 22(1) 123­–139
© The Author(s) 2019

reflecting on the materiality Article reuse guidelines:

of digital media technologies: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858081
DOI: 10.1177/1461444819858081
Repair and fair production journals.sagepub.com/home/nms

Sigrid Kannengießer
University of Bremen, Germany

Abstract
How do people think about and engage with the materiality of digital media technologies
and thereby try to transform the devices and society? The article discusses this question
by presenting the results of two qualitative studies in which people reflect on and engage
with the materiality of media technologies. In the first case, the repairing of media
devices in Repair Cafés was analyzed, in the second, the focus was on the production
and appropriation of the Fairphone, a smartphone which should be produced under
fair working conditions. In both initiatives people reflect on the materiality of media
technologies, criticize the production and disposal of the devices, and engage with the
materiality of the apparatuses in order to change not only the technologies but also
society as a whole by contributing to sustainability and the “good life.” The article adds
to the field dealing with materiality and digital media technologies.

Keywords
Digital media technologies, engagement, fair media technologies, good life, materiality,
participation, repair, sustainability

Introduction
After the “material turn” (Bennett and Joyce, 2010), the scholars in media and commu-
nication studies started to emphasize the materiality of media technologies (again) (e.g.
Allen-Robertson, 2015; Bruno, 2014; Gillespie et al., 2014; Goddard, 2014). But the

Corresponding author:
Sigrid Kannengießer, Center for Media, Communication and Information Research, University of Bremen,
Linzer Strasse 4, D-28359, Bremen, Germany.
Email: [email protected]
124 new media & society 22(1)

materiality of media in communication and media studies is still an “unfinished project”

(Lievrouw, 2014), and many open questions remain. This article deals with one of the
unanswered questions in the field dealing with materiality in media and communication
studies: how do people engage with the materiality of digital media technologies and
thereby try to transform the devices and society?
The article will discuss results of two empirical studies in which people reflect on and
engage with the materiality of digital media technologies: the repairing of (digital) media
technologies in Repair Cafés and the Fairphone.1 Repair Cafés are public events in which
people repair together their broken objects of everyday life—media technologies being
among those goods which are brought most often to these events. The Fairphone is a
Dutch company that developed and produces a smartphone (also called Fairphone)
which should be produced under fair conditions using sustainable resources. The com-
parison of these two cases is original. It is insightful as it reveals commonalities and
differences in practices with which actors try to contribute to a sustainable society and
“the good life” by reflecting on and engaging with the materiality of media technolo-
gies.2 In both initiatives, people criticize current processes of production and disposal of
digital media technologies and engage with the devices because they want to develop
alternatives. However, the cases chosen differ in their starting points as the repairing of
media technologies tries to prolong the life-span of exiting media technologies while the
Fairphone wants to improve the production processes of new media devices.
Discussing the empirical results of the two case studies, I will argue that we have to
take into account what people do with media technologies to understand how people
engage politically with and comment critically on the material dimension of digital
media technologies. As the case studies show, the digital character of media technologies
is an important issue for people engaging with and thinking about the materiality of
media technologies.
The article is structured as follows. First, I will sketch out the relevant research litera-
ture on the materiality of media technology, with a specific focus on repair and fair media
technologies. Second, I introduce the two case studies and my empirical methods. Third,
I discuss the findings from my research by introducing four dimensions with which the
practices and motives of people engaging with digital media technologies to contribute
to sustainability and the “good life” can be grasped: criticism, alternatives, understand-
ing, and education. In the final section, I reflect on the two initiatives’ practices and aims
and point to constraints and ambivalences. Ending the article, I explain the article’s con-
tribution to the ongoing debate on media and materiality.

Materiality of media technologies in media and

communication studies
Materiality of media technologies is not a new topic in media and communication stud-
ies. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Innis (1951) and McLuhan (1964) prompted reassess-
ment of the material aspects of media, shifting the focus from media content to their
form. But while materiality of media were only of “peripheral interest” (Quandt and von
Pape, 2010: 330) for a long time, with the “material turn” (Bennett and Joyce, 2010)
many scholars in media and communication studies nowadays examine the materiality of
Kannengießer 125

media (e.g. Allen-Robertson, 2015; Berry, 2012; Bruno, 2014; Geiger, 2014; Gillespie
et al., 2014; Goddard, 2014). Still, how people engage with the materiality of media
technologies and thereby try to transform the devices and society has not yet been suffi-
ciently answered. Only a few studies have focused on the political meanings of material-
ity (e.g. Lodato and DiSalvo, 2016; Marres and Lezaun, 2011). In-line with the
actor-network-theory approach, Marres (2012) introduces the concept “material partici-
pation,” emphasizing the role of objects in political engagement. She takes a “device-
centered perspective” (Marres, 2012: 27, 133), arguing that material participation is “a
specific mode of engagement, which can be distinguished by the fact that it deliberately
deploys its surroundings,” (Marres, 2012: 2).
Although the empirical findings of the case studies presented in this article stress the
relevance of the materiality of media technologies when people engage with their
devices, the article nevertheless follows a “non-media-centric” approach (Morley, 2009)
by focusing on the people and their practices and not the devices themselves. Thereby,
the case studies analyzed allow me to explore engagement with the materiality of media
technologies, whereby the engagement aims at transforming society. Before describing
the methods used and discussing the results of the studies comparatively, I will sketch out
how materiality is acknowledged in the research fields on repair, Repair Cafés, and fair
media technologies.

Repairing and Repair Cafés

Repair Cafés are new event formats that have spread all over Western Europe and North
America within recent years, in which people meet to repair their everyday objects.
Repair is defined as “the process of sustaining, managing, and repurposing technology in
order to cope with attrition and regressive change” (Rosner and Turner, 2015: 59). While
repairing is not a new praxis, as Stöger (2015) shows when analyzing processes of repair
in pre-modern societies in Europe between the 17th and early 19th centuries, it is cur-
rently gaining new relevance in (post-)modern societies due to economic and climate
crisis. Jackson (2014) introduces the concept of “broken world thinking,” demanding a
shift in perspective from novelty, growth, and progress to erosion, breakdown, and decay,
stressing that social change is not only caused by technological innovation but “that
breakdown, dissolution, and change […] are the key themes and problems facing new
media and technology scholarship today.” (Jackson, 2014: 222).
Repair and public sites of repair are mainly analyzed in technology and design studies
(see, for example, articles in Houston et al., 2017). Repairing and examples of public sites
of repair have been analyzed in different cultural contexts, for example, in the United States
(e.g. Rosner and Turner, 2015), Paraguay (Rosner and Ames, 2014), Uganda (Houston,
2014), Namibia (Jackson et al., 2012), and Bangladesh (Ahmed et al., 2015). These studies
take repairing and public sites of repair into account from different theoretical angles,
stressing different aspects of the processes and phenomena perceived. Repair Cafés have
also been analyzed from a figurational perspective (Kannengießer, 2018).
Acknowledging the political dimension of repair, Rosner and Ames (2014: 326) show
that the initiatives of repair they analyze in California and Paraguay follow the idea of
technical empowerment. In their analysis of public sites of repair in California, Rosner
126 new media & society 22(1)

and Turner (2015: 63) found out that people “try to transform the products of a mass-
industrial production system into tools for personal and collective transformation”.
Therefore, they describe repair as “a mode of political action” (Rosner and Turner, 2015:
64–65). Although the authors are not dealing with the materiality of media technologies,
it is at this point that its relevance becomes obvious for repairing. Repairing is also dis-
cussed as an act of unconventional political participation as it is not institutionalized but
aims at shaping and changing society at large (Kannengießer, 2016; 2017).
Besides these political implications of repair, its relevance for learning and education
is stressed. Ahmed et al. (2015) found out in their analysis of repair markets in Bangladesh
that different types of knowledge and learning take place: from explicit and tacit knowl-
edge about repair and the objects of repair, to social knowledge about the customers. The
authors (Ahmed et al., 2015: 1) argue that repair is “an underappreciated site of third-
world technical practice and expertise.” Also Houston (2014) stresses the relevance of
repair in developing contexts, analyzing mobile phone repair practices in Uganda.
Moreover, repair is perceived as “care of things” (Denis and Pontille, 2015) or “care
for matter” (Callén and Sánchez Criado, 2015) dealing with the material fragility
(Denis and Pontille, 2015: 338) or vulnerability (Callén and Sánchez Criado, 2015: 17)
of objects.
In a quantitative study, Charter and Keiller (2014) found out that people’s reasons for
getting involved in Repair Cafés mainly are: to encourage others to live more sustaina-
bly, to provide a valuable service to the community, and to be a part of the movement to
improve product reparability and longevity (Charter and Keiller, 2014: 5). But neither is
the materiality of media technologies (or other goods) acknowledged here nor is the
repairing discussed as political engagement. This is where my research interest lay: I
focused on people repairing (digital) media technologies in Repair Cafés, the way they
engage with their devices, and the reasons for their actions. By putting the focus on peo-
ple repairing media technologies and analyzing the data from the angle of materiality,
this article contributes to the research field of repair and public sites of repair and exam-
ines the specific role of the materiality of media technologies in the practices and the
attitudes of the actors involved. Therefore, the article also contributes to media and com-
munication studies in general and the discourse about materiality within this field, in
particular, as it underlines the political relevance of (public) repairing of media devices.
Analyzing different Repair Cafés in Germany, the study presented explores whether
differences in the settings of the events and the background of the people organizing the
events matter for the events themselves, the people participating, or their practices and
motives. In addition, by comparing the findings of the case study involving the repairing
of media technologies in Repair Cafés with production of the Fairphone, it is possible to
point to similarities and differences in various practices through which people engage
with and reflect on the materiality of (digital) media technologies.3

Fair media technologies and the Fairphone

Fairphone is a Dutch company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, which developed a
smartphone, also called Fairphone, designed to be produced under fair working condi-
tions. The production and appropriation of fair media technologies is a research field in
Kannengießer 127

which the Fairphone is the most prominent research object. It is analyzed in different
disciplines. Design studies, for example, discuss the Fairphone from a “participatory
design” (van der Velden, 2014) perspective and as a “critical design alternative for sus-
tainability” (Joshi and Pargman, 2015). It is argued that the Fairphone is an example of
design as political and democratic practice (van der Velden, 2014: 1), and the production
of the Fairphone is described as political participation (Kannengießer, 2016).
Materials research studies the actual materiality of the Fairphone. The research
emphasizes although that only few resources can actually be labeled fair, judging the
smartphone as fair or not would make sense (Dießenbacher and Reller, 2016: 287). Here,
the scholars of materials research point to the symbolic relevance of the Fairphone,
which I will discuss below.
From an economic perspective, the Fairphone company itself is defined as a “social
entrepreneur” which does not only contribute to a sustainable society but also puts media
technology companies under pressure to deal with sustainability (Akemu et al., 2016;
Lin-Hi and Blumberg, 2015). From a legal perspective, the Fairphone company is dis-
cussed as an example of how enterprises can act against violations of human rights in the
mobile phone market (Hagemann, 2017: 67).
While these studies focus on the smartphone itself and the company, there are also
studies in psychology which analyze the appropriation of the Fairphone. In an automated
analysis of the online forum on the website of the company, Meier and Mäschig (2016)
study the attitudes of Fairphone users. The authors point to the shortcomings of their
method as they admit that a reconstruction of the perspective of the users was actually
not possible in this study. My research focused on reconstructing the perspective of both
the users of the Fairphone and of the company, thereby contributing to the research field
by asking about the aims and motives of those actors developing and using fair media
technologies and by analyzing the actual practices critically.
Sketching the research dealing with Repair Cafés and the Fairphone, it becomes
apparent that the actors’ engagement with media technologies has not yet been suffi-
ciently analyzed empirically when it comes to materiality and political engagement.
Before discussing the results of my study, I will give a brief overview of the two case
studies and my methodology.

Case studies and methods

Repair Cafés are rather new initiatives where people meet to repair their everyday
objects—media technologies being the goods which are brought most often to these
gatherings. While some people offer help in the repairing process without charge, others
seek help in repairing their things. Repair Cafés have spread all over Western Europe and
North America within the last years.4
The Fairphone is a smartphone that claims to have been produced under fair working
conditions using sustainable resources. I underline that the Fairphone is supposed to be
produced using sustainable resources as only four resources can actually be produced
fairly and sustainably (I will come back to this).
The first generation of Fairphones came onto the market in 2013, the second one
in 2015. The Fairphone is sold through a crowed-funding process: before the
128 new media & society 22(1)

smartphones are actually produced, a certain number has to be sold. The company
rents production sites in Asia for the production processes. The company also pro-
duces spare parts as the Fairphone is a modular phone and is designed to be repaired.
My research interest touches on both production and the appropriation of the
Fairphone. I was not only interested in why the company produces the Fairphone but
also why people buy and use it.
The initiatives chosen allow a rather old practice (repairing) which is experiencing
new meanings and popularity to be compared with a new practice, that is, producing and
appropriating fair media technologies. My primary research interest is in the practices
and motives of the people involved focusing on the material dimension of media
technologies.
The data presented in this article are based on qualitative methods and follows a
Grounded Theory approach that makes it possible to deal with the object of study openly,
and to reconstruct the actors’ perspectives (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). In the case of the
Repair Cafés, participant observations took place in three different locations in Germany
in 2014 and 2015.
I chose three different Repair Cafés in Germany which vary regarding their actual
setting and the background of the organizers: one Repair Café was organized by univer-
sity employees in a pub in Oldenburg, a small city in the North of Germany; the second
one was organized by an artist in her studio in Berlin; and the third one was organized by
a retired teacher in a community center in Garbsen, a small town in the North of Germany.
Choosing Repair Cafés in different locations which are organized by actors from differ-
ent backgrounds made it possible to show the spectrum of repair initiatives, on one hand,
while enabling me to explore whether different settings and different actors influence the
way Repair Cafés take place, the composition of the group of people participating, and
their practices and motives for repairing.
Moreover, observations took place during a network meeting of repair initiatives in
Germany organized by Anstiftung & Ertomis in Berlin.5 In total, 40 face-to-face inter-
views were conducted with organizers of Repair Cafés, individuals offering their help in
repairing media technologies, and people seeking help in fixing their devices as well as
with employees of the non-governmental organization (NGO) Anstiftung & Ertomis.
Regarding the sample, I interviewed men as well as women from all age groups and dif-
ferent educational backgrounds and social classes. Interestingly, there were very few
participants with a migrant background in the Repair Cafés I visited.
To analyze the production and appropriation side of the Fairphone, I conducted a
qualitative content analysis of the company’s website and on social networking sites the
company produces, and of six interviews which the founder of the Fairphone company,
Bas van Abel, gave to German newspapers. Moreover, I conducted qualitative interviews
with 12 people who own and use the Fairphone. For the sample of interviewees, I
searched for people from different educational backgrounds and social classes, but
mainly found academics who owned the Fairphone. While this may be an outcome of the
way I looked for interview partners, I assume that the Fairphone is indeed a product that
mainly academics consume (there are no surveys from the company to support or dis-
prove this assumption). Nevertheless, the Fairphone users I interviewed were of different
ages and income groups.
Kannengießer 129

Also here, I did not find anybody with a migrant background. Still, both initiatives,
the Repair Cafés as well as the Fairphone, are international phenomena found in many
different countries (even if both are mainly Western European and North American phe-
nomena—highly industrialized consumer societies). After collecting the data of both
cases studies, I analyzed it using the three-step coding process of the Grounded Theory
(Corbin and Strauss, 2008).
I will continue with my argumentation, discussing the results of the qualitative studies
along four dimensions (criticism, alternatives, understanding, and education) that dem-
onstrate how the two initiatives focused on the materiality of media technologies. The
four dimensions do not occupy the same level, and yet they are a very helpful way to
grasp the way civil society actors engage with the material dimension of media technolo-
gies, and try to transform the devices and society.

Dimensions of repair and fair production regarding the

materiality of media technologies
In the context of the two case studies, the engagement with the materiality of media
technologies, the practices and the motives, can be divided into four main dimensions:
(1) criticism, (2) alternatives, (3) understanding, and (4) education.
Not all of the dimensions apply to both case studies in the same quality, as some are
more relevant for either one of the initiatives. Furthermore, the four dimensions are not
situated on the same level since some dimensions are more of a reflexive thinking pro-
cess and others are concrete practices. Besides these four dimensions, there are more
aspects, for example, personal attachment to the devices, saving money, which play a
minor role in the data collected within the case studies, and are therefore excluded in the
presentation of the results. This exclusion also makes sense because these other aspects
have a minor relevance for the focus of this article, which deals with thoughts about and
engagement with the materiality of media technologies.
Nevertheless, how and why people engage with the materiality of media technologies
and through these practices try to transform society can be grasped through these four
dimensions.

Criticism
In both case studies, the actors involved problematize contemporary forms of produc-
tion, appropriation and disposal of media technologies, and develop alternatives to domi-
nant media practices related to the materiality of media technologies.
Many people involved in Repair Cafés criticize the excessive consumption of media
technologies and try to avoid buying new devices by prolonging the lifespan of the appa-
ratuses they own by repairing them. The participants show a great awareness of the
harmful production processes of media technologies, in which people and the environ-
ment are exploited.6 Many participants of Repair Cafés point to the finiteness of resources
which are needed for the production of media technologies, and the exploitation of
nature. Acknowledging the lack of recycling options and the need for more and more
resources, one participant expresses his motivation for repairing his radio apparatus as
130 new media & society 22(1)

follows: “I think it’s a pity and a waste of resources to throw these devices away, because
they then only become scrap. The material will not even be recycled.” In addition, par-
ticipants refer to the disastrous working conditions under which coltan (a metallic ore
needed for digital media technologies) is extracted: “I think especially the repairing of
computers is important as they contain resources, because of which people in other coun-
tries die. And we should not throw these [technologies] away and buy a new iphone,”
says one of the organizers of a Repair Café.
A second feature regarding the criticism of consumption is waste prevention. Many
people involved in Repair Cafés try to avoid producing e-waste by repairing their devices.
They oppose the circumstances on waste dumps in Ghana, for example, where people
burn the broken media technologies to extract reusable resources thus damaging their
health and the environment as poisonous substances end up in the soil and groundwater:7
“That’s the bad thing, that old media technologies are brought to disposal sites in Africa
and that people there search for noble metal and this shit. That makes me sick,” voiced a
50-year-old man offering help in repairing media technologies.
In the context of Repair Cafés, the prevention of resource and production waste can
at least partially be seen as a criticism of capitalism insofar as some of the actors try to
break out of the capitalist ideology of consumption and the dominance of global cor-
porations. This criticism is shared among participants throughout the Repair Cafés
analyzed, irrespective of their settings and the background of the organizers. Instead,
they aim to empower themselves and other people by acting on the materiality of their
media technologies (through repairing) and by becoming less dependent on large tech
companies.
The Fairphone company developed its fair smartphone to offer a fair alternative on
the market of media technologies. On their website and on social networking sites such
as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram the company points to the harmful production and
disposal processes of media devices. The company describes one of its key objectives as
being to “improve consumer awareness of responsible mining […] and the connections
with the electronics industries” (Fairphone, 2016b). With their criticism, the Fairphone
company tries to influence the discourse on media technologies and fair consumer
goods—bringing the fair trade approach into the market of media technologies.
Moreover, people using the Fairphone know from mass media reporting about the
harmful production and disposal processes of media technologies, and criticize them.
They are aware that many resources built into digital media technologies are extracted
under circumstances which harm people and the environment. By buying a phone which
promises to consist (at least partly) of fair resources, the users try to strengthen a market
of fair media technologies, as one of the users stresses when explaining her reasons for
buying the Fairphone: “I invest in a company which invests in the development of sus-
tainable products and fair trade production.”
Many users, however, are aware that there are only a few actual fair resources inte-
grated into the Fairphone. Nevertheless, people construct this smartphone to support the
idea of fair media technologies and want to set a sign, and doing so provoke discussions
with others about fair trade and sustainability, as one user describes it: “When I got it [the
Fairphone], people asked [about it] because they were skeptical […] and then we started
talking about it.”
Kannengießer 131

Reassessment of the resources which are used in media technologies and the way
these resources are extracted and the way media technologies are disposed of is the
dominant way the materiality of media technologies is perceived by the actors involved
in both initiatives. For them, these are the relevant aspects regarding the materiality of
media devices—more relevant than, for example, the composition of media apparatuses.
These aspects of materiality are not only the reasons for people to engage with media
technologies, they also confirm their political engagement.8
The engagement of the actors involved in both initiatives does not stop at criticizing
dominant production processes of media technologies, but expands toward developing
alternatives to the production and appropriation of media technologies that they criticize.

Alternatives
On the basis of the criticism of dominant production and disposal processes of media
technologies that both initiatives express, the actors develop alternatives regarding the
production and appropriation of media technologies. Participants involved in Repair
Cafés practice an alternative to the consumption of media technologies by repairing bro-
ken devices. They perceive a need for the repairing of technologies because of the above-
mentioned criticism of current production and disposal processes. Through prolonging
the life span of existing media technologies, people not only try to avoid supporting
patterns of today’s consumer society but also want to contribute to a more sustainable
society and a “good life.” An organizer of a Repair Café stresses the importance of a
cultural change which he perceives as necessary to establish sustainability:

We need to have a cultural change, through which it becomes cool again and socially acceptable
to walk around with technologies which have signs of use and patina, where the display has
scratches or fractures and one says: “This is my good old device, I stand by this, this is my
trademark.”

In his view, this cultural change can be achieved by changing consumers’ estimation of
the materiality of media technologies, not only the new and fancy being valuable but also
older and used devices.
In contrast to the repairing of media technologies and to prolonging the life-span of old
or existing technologies, the Fairphone company has developed an innovative new media
technology. The newness lies not in any new software options or design inspirations but
touches on the materiality of the media technology itself, which should contain sustainable
resources and enable people who produce the smartphones to work under fair conditions.
The Fairphone (2016a) company reflects on the negative effects the production of
digital media technologies causes and tries to develop an alternative: “[We aim at further
reducing] our environmental impact with every version of the Fairphone we produce.”
The fairness is inscribed into the materiality of the media technology. By producing
under fair conditions with sustainable resources extracted in conflict-free areas, the
Fairphone company aims at providing an alternative on the media technology market.
Moreover, the Fairphone is produced as a modular phone which can be repaired.
Thereby, the company aims at prolonging the life-span of the materiality of the digital
132 new media & society 22(1)

devices to make them more sustainable: “We’re designing the Fairphone to extend its
usable lifespan, enable reuse and support safe recycling” (Fairphone, 2015b). Many cus-
tomers of the Fairphone are aware of the possibility to repair the smartphone and thereby
prolong the life-span of the device, and this is one of the reasons for them to buy the
Fairphone, as one of the users explains the following: “I heard that there is a repair
manual that exists and that one can repair some parts on one’s own. The longevity was
definitely something, which made me buy [the Fairphone].”
Offering and practicing these alternatives, actors try to transform society into a sus-
tainable one with the way they engage with the materiality of media technologies.

Understanding
Many actors involved in Repair Cafés and users of the Fairphone strive to understand the
media technologies that they use. This understanding can, for example, be achieved by
engaging with the materiality of media technologies but also by understanding where the
devices come from. Actors involved in Repair Cafés, members of the Fairphone com-
pany, and users of the Fairphone are “technophile.” In Repair Cafés people—in this case
mostly men—are happy to open media apparatuses, screw, glue, and clean the technolo-
gies. It is mainly the helpers who engage with the materiality of media technologies,
loosening and tightening screws, getting dust out of the apparatuses by cleaning the
insides very carefully with special tissues, using contact spray for electronic connections,
and gluing parts which have been broken apart. Some helpers have a passion for old
media such as (very) old radios or tape recorders, others find a joyful challenge in repair-
ing new digital apparatuses. But many explain the challenges they face trying to repair
new digital media technologies: often, there are no screws that can be used to open and
close the devices, and no manuals on the WorldWideWeb explaining the structure and
composition of apparatuses and how they might be repaired.
People come to Repair Cafés not only because they seek support in the repair process
but also because they want to learn how to repair—they want to understand how the devices
they use every day actually work, and they want to know the reasons for a specific mal-
functioning and how this can be solved. Therefore, they ask the people offering help in
Repair Cafés, observe closely what they do, and engage with the materiality of media by
dismantling, reassembling and the like. All these practices are part of a learning process
and lead to an enhanced understanding of how apparently complex technical devices work.
People using the Fairphone are keen to know where the media technologies they use
come from. They appreciate the transparency which the Fairphone company provides
regarding the supply chain of the smartphone, as one of the Fairphone users stresses
the following: “[I like] the approach of transparency and also the credible communica-
tion, that they [the Fairphone company] say: ‘okay, we say what we work on, where
our core areas are, what we want to improve’, this is what I liked.” Users know from
mass media about the harmful production and disposal processes of media devices and
actively inform themselves about these processes. Moreover, they think about their
own consumption behavior and are open to alternatives. While some Fairphone users
stumbled over the Fairphone as an alternative on the smartphone market, others
actively sought alternatives.
Kannengießer 133

Besides their knowledge of the production and disposal processes, Fairphone users
are interested in engaging with their smartphones. Many bought the Fairphone because
it is built as a modular phone and therefore repairable. This is not only important to the
users because they can prolong the life-span of their device by repairing it but also
because many are interested and enjoy opening their smartphone and exploring it.
Within the dimension of understanding, a political meaning can be stressed: only
when people understand where their media technologies come from and where they go
when they are disposed of, can they become politically mature consumers. Therefore,
for the actors involved in both initiatives, their media production and appropriation
becomes an act of empowerment as they understand the materiality of media technolo-
gies and take action.

Education
The drive for empowerment, which both initiatives follow, is often related to the dimen-
sion of education. A central aim of both initiatives is to share their skills, knowledge, and
experience related to the materiality of media devices.
Providing education is a core ambition of the Repair Cafés’ organizers: they want
people to engage with their objects, to understand their devices, and to learn how to
repair them. Therefore, organizers of Repair Cafés try to build a network among people
who have the relevant resources to repair and those seeking help in the repair process.
The aim is to share required capacities related to repairing and by doing so to enhance
people’s understanding of media technologies. At the same time, it is apparent that the
organizers’ educational aim has its limitations. Repairing digital media technologies
such as smartphones or notebooks does not only require particular tools but also a high
level of expertise, which complicates the knowledge exchange and sometimes makes the
repair process even impossible. It is the actual composition of media technologies that
becomes relevant when educating people about the materiality of the devices, showing
them the screws that can be opened, the electronic connections that can be cleaned, and
the effects contact spray can have.
The Fairphone company also seeks to educate people. It does so first by offering a
Fairphone, the name of which already provokes reflection. The company also educates
using the media content it produces, for example, on its website but also the social net-
working sites that it uses as it gives precise information about the materiality of the
smartphone, the resources which the apparatuses consist of, the production processes,
and also the aim of the company. Moreover, the company runs campaigns which educate
about all these aspects. Therefore, education can be defined as one of the major ambi-
tions of the Fairphone company.
Some people using the Fairphone try to provoke discussions about fair media tech-
nologies. They use the Fairphone as a symbol and say that they are often asked by others
about the phone and their motives for using it, as one of the Fairphone users puts it: “I
think, that it is a good signal to buy the Fairphone: Especially because I am asked about
it. […] That’s why I was able to discuss these issues.” Hence, using the Fairphone pro-
vokes discussions about fair technologies and harmful production and disposal processes
of media devices in which the Fairphone users spread their knowledge.
134 new media & society 22(1)

Ambivalences and constraints within repair and fair

production
When applying a critical perspective of both initiatives, there are several constraints and
ambivalences that have to be acknowledged. First of all, both initiatives are situated in a
societal niche within the media market. Although the number of Repair Cafés is increas-
ing, at least in European and North American countries (in Germany, there are more than
600 initiatives registered on the website www.reparatur-initiativen.de), only a small
number of people actually repair their broken media technologies.
The participants themselves point to the constraints which they face as this citation
from a woman, trying to repair her television set, exemplifies: “climate change […] we
need to practice what we preach, that’s why I am doing that [repairing the TV set]. This
is my contribution, as far as it is possible.”
The Fairphone is also situated in a niche: the Fairphone’s market is tiny compared with
the huge smartphone market of “not-fair” smartphones. Moreover, there are ambivalences
regarding the aims of the actors involved in both initiatives. As already mentioned, the
Fairphone is not really fair. There are only few minerals in the devices that are extracted
under fair conditions. Nevertheless, the company is transparent regarding these circum-
stances and admits that a “100% fair phone is in fact unachievable” (Fairphone, 2015a: 2).
Nevertheless, they will try to make their products more fair in future (Fairphone, 2015a: 2).
Regarding the appropriation of the Fairphone and people repairing their media devices
in Repair Cafés, more ambivalences can be perceived. People stress that they repair their
devices or buy repairable smartphones to contribute to sustainability and a “good life” by
prolonging the life-span of their technologies. Yet, at the same time, many of those people
who repair their media devices have a big media repertoire (Hasebrink and Domeyer,
2012), meaning that they own a lot of media technologies, and buy innovations fre-
quently—which might conflict with their ambitions regarding sustainability. Not buying
any media technologies would be the most sustainable way. These ambiguities also refer
to the constraints of the initiatives.
The question of profit or cost is also what made the company stop producing spare
parts for the first Fairphone generation in 2017, only 4 years after the first Fairphones
were delivered. Therefore, this Fairphone generation is not repairable anymore. After
announcing the abandoning of spare part production, the founder of the company, Bas
van Abel, claimed in media interviews that durability was not the focus of the company,
or the previous smartphone (Tricarico, 2017), although my analyses of the website in
2015 showed that reparability was advertised as one of the key features of the Fairphone.
Acknowledging these constraints and ambivalences, both initiatives can still be
described as examples of how people engage with the materiality of media technologies
with the idea of transforming society. People do not not use digital media technologies
but try to develop alternative practices and technologies by engaging with the devices.
Some people try to push their knowledge about the problematic aspects of the materiality
of media technologies aside to still use digital media devices: “One mustn’t think about
these production processes because if one does, one would not buy electronic devices
anymore,” tells one participant of a Repair Café. Still, people try to change the devices
and society by reflecting on and engaging with the materiality of digital apparatuses.
Kannengießer 135

Discussion
In this article, Repair Cafés and the Fairphone have been analyzed as two initiatives that
act on the materiality of media technologies. In both initiatives, people reflect on the
materiality of media technologies, the harmful production and disposal processes of
media apparatuses, the resources media devices consist of, and how they are produced
and disposed of. Moreover, in both initiatives, people engage with the materiality of
media technologies by trying to develop alternatives in media appropriation and produc-
tion processes, either repairing media technologies or producing fair devices.
Both case studies serve as examples of ways in which people engage with the material
dimension of media technologies to transform society into a fairer and sustainable one.
Therefore, the empirical studies contribute to the research field on materiality and media
technologies—not by focusing on the devices as such (as the perspective of material
participation suggests, Marres, 2012) but taking a non-media-centric approach (Morley,
2009), which is to show how people reflect on the materiality of and engage with the
technologies. Still, the study presented in this article can be seen as being in line with
existing literature (Allen-Robertson, 2015; Berry, 2012; Gillespie et al., 2014), as it
stresses the relevance of the materiality of digital media technologies—in particular,
underlining its relevance for practices of reflection and engagement.
In both case studies, the materiality of media technologies becomes politicized as the
actors try to transform society—into a fairer and sustainable one—with their media pro-
duction and appropriation. Both initiatives frame their practices as being political; they
problematize and politicize the role of media technologies in society. According to
Mouffe’s (2005) definition of the political, the practices of the actors involved can be
described as being political; they are examples of “sub-political practices” (Beck, 1997:
103) and “life politics” (Giddens, 1991: 215). At the same time, the materiality of media
technologies confirms the political engagement of the actors.
The study presented in this article adds to the research field on repair and public sites of
repair as well as fair media technologies as it deviates from several assumptions that have
already been made by previous studies by focusing on the materiality of media technologies
and the practices with which people reflect on and engage with this materiality. The political
aspects of repair, which, for example, Rosner and Turner (2015) also stress, are confirmed,
although in focusing on the materiality of media technologies—the political relevance of the
materiality as such as well as the practices of reflecting on and engaging with the materiality
of the apparatuses are stressed. Moreover, the educational relevance of repair (Ahmed et al.,
2015) is also confirmed in these examples in the so-called “developed world.” Nevertheless,
compared with existing studies, the relevance of the materiality of media technologies is
more in the focus here, and so this study reveals the constraints to gaining and sharing knowl-
edge resulting from restrictions to the possibilities of repairing. Materiality, in the sense of the
composition of the apparatuses, restricts repair as a “care for matter” (Callén and Sánchez
Criado, 2015) as especially the new digital media devices cannot easily be opened or opened
at all. The restrictions regarding repair as a practice of caring can also be perceived in the
example of the Fairphone as no spare parts are no longer sold for the first generation of the
Fairphone. This was explained as one of the ambivalences which can be found between the
aims of the initiatives and the practices actually taking place. The study adds to the research
136 new media & society 22(1)

field of fair media technologies by taking a close look at the practices, motives, and aims of
these practices, something which had not been done before (Meier and Mäschig, 2016). It is
the ambivalences and constraints elaborated on that contribute important aspects to the exist-
ing research fields by underlining the fact that phenomena which aim at societal transforma-
tion must be analyzed from a critical perspective.
It is unlikely that either of the two initiatives will have a “revolutionary” impact on
society. Still, the case studies discussed in this article show that engaging with the mate-
riality of media technologies can have a significant political meaning. Moreover, the
findings presented here stress the relevance of taking these political meanings into
account when dealing with the material dimension of media technologies.

Conclusion
When comparing the cases of repairing (digital) media technologies in Repair Cafés and
the production and appropriation of the Fairphone, a smartphone which was devised to be
produced under fair working conditions, this article underlined the relevance of the mate-
riality of (digital) media technologies within practices in which actors act on media to
transform society. The article showed how and why people reflect on the materiality of the
devices with which they engage for political reasons. Yet, there are several constraints and
ambivalences which were revealed by a comparison of the practices and motives of the
actors, these lead to the final conclusion that although the examples are attempts to trans-
form society they face restrictions and limits in their own material practices.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research is funded by the Central Research Development Fund
of the University of Bremen.

Notes
1. Parts of this article have been presented at the International Communication Association
(ICA)-conference (Kannengießer and Kubitschko, 2017).
2. The “good life” is a philosophical concept normatively asking about an ethical way of living also
dealt with in communication studies (e.g. Wang, 2015), which must be discussed in relation to sus-
tainability today. Sustainability is here defined according to the definition of sustainable develop-
ment by the United Nations (United Nations General Assembly, 1987) as “a process of change in
which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological
development, and institutional change are made consistent with future as well as present needs.”
3. Both cases are also analyzed using a media practice perspective (Kannengießer, in press).
4. For a list of Repair Cafés worldwide see https://repaircafe.org/en (accessed 10 August 2018).
5. Anstiftung & Ertomis is a non-governmental organization that supports repair initiatives in
Germany and builds a network among them; see http://anstiftung.de/english (accessed 10
November 2018).
6. See, for example, Bleischwitz et al. (2012), Maxwell and Miller, 2012, Chan and Ho (2008)
for research on the pollutive production processes of digital media technologies.
7. See for an analysis of the effects of e-waste, for example, Gabrys (2011), Kaitatzi-Whitlock
(2015).
8. I would like to thank my reviewers for pointing this two-sided argument to me.
Kannengießer 137

ORCID iD
Sigrid Kannengießer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2342-9868

References
Ahmed SI, Jackson SJ and Rifat MR (2015) Learning to fix: knowledge, collaboration and mobile
phone repair in Dhaka, Bangladesh. In: ICTD’15, 15–18 May. Available at: https://sjackson.
infosci.cornell.edu/AhmedJacksonRifat_LearningToFix%28ICTD2015%29.pdf (accessed 4
April 2019).
Akemu O, Whitman G and Kennedy S (2016) Social enterprise emergence from social movement
activism: the Fairphone case. Journal of Management Studies 53(5): 846–877.
Allen-Robertson J (2015) The materiality of digital media: the hard disk drive, phonograph, mag-
netic tape and optical media in technical close-up. New Media & Society 19(3): 455–470.
Beck U (1997) The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bennett T and Joyce P (2010) Material powers: introduction. In: Bennett T and Joyce P (eds)
Material Powers: Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn. London: Routledge.
Berry D (ed.) (2012) Understanding Digital Humanities. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bleischwitz R, Dittrich M and Pierdicca C (2012) Coltan from Central Africa, international trade
and implications for any certification. Resources Policy 37: 19–29.
Bruno G (2014) Surface: Matters of Aesthetics, Materiality, and Media. Chicago, IL; London:
University of Chicago Press.
Callén B and Sánchez Criado T (2015) Vulnerability tests. Matters of “care for matter” in e-waste
practices. Technoscienza—Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies 6(2): 17–40.
Chan J and Ho C (2008) The Dark Side of Cyberspace: Inside the Sweatshops of China’s Computer
Hardware Production. Berlin. Available at: http://goodelectronics.org/publicationsen/
Publication_2851/ (accessed 13 January 2018).
Charter M and Keiller S (2014) Grassroots Innovation and the Circular Economy. A Global Survey
of Repair Cafés and Hackerspaces. Farnham: University for the Creative Arts. Available at:
http://cfsd.org.uk/site-pdfs/circular-economy-and-grassroots-innovation/Survey-of-Repair-
Cafes-and-Hackerspaces.pdf (accessed 10 August 2016).
Corbin J and Strauss A (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research. techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Denis J and Pontille D (2015) Material ordering and the care of things. Science, Technology, &
Human Values 40(3): 338–367.
Dießenbacher J and Reller A (2016) Das “Fairphone”—ein Impuls in Richtung nachhaltige
Elektronik? In: Exner A and Held M, Kümmerer K (eds) Kritische Rohstoffe in der Großen
Transformation: Metalle, Stoffstrompolitik und Postwachstum. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.
269–292.
Fairphone (2015a) Fairphone fact sheet. Available at: https://www.fairphone.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/08/Fairphone-factsheet_EN.pdf (accessed 30 November 2015).
Fairphone (2015b) Life cycle taking a circular view of use, reuse and recycling. Available at:
https://www.fairphone.com/roadmap/lifecycle/ (accessed 10 January 2017).
Fairphone (2016a) Fair materials. Available at: https://www.fairphone.com/en/our-goals/fair-
materials/ (accessed 10 January 2017).
Fairphone (2016b) Tungsten: identifying responsible sources of tungsten in the African Great Lakes
region. Available at: https://www.fairphone.com/projects/tungsten/ (accessed 5 July 2016).
Gabrys J (2011) Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
138 new media & society 22(1)

Geiger R (2014) Bots, bespoke, code and the materiality of software platforms. Information,
Communication & Society 17(3): 342–356.
Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age.
Cambridge; Oxford: Polity Press.
Gillespie T, Boczkowski P and Foot K (eds) (2014) Media Technologies: Essays on Communication,
Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Goddard M (2014) Opening up the black boxes: media archaeology, “anarchaeology” and media
materiality. New Media & Society 17(11): 1761–1776.
Hagemann K (2017) Menschenrechtsverletzungen Im Internationalen Wirtschaftsrecht.
Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.
Hasebrink U and Domeyer H (2012) Media repertoires as patterns of behaviour and as mean-
ingful practices: a multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments.
Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 9(2): 757–783.
Houston L (2014) Inventive infrastructure: an exploration of mobile phone repair practices in
downtown Kampala, Uganda. PhD Dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
Houston L, Rosner DK, Jackson S, et al. (2017) R3pair volume. Continent 6.1. http://mobile.con-
tinentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/view/288
Innis H (1951) The Bias of Communication. Toronto, ON, Canada: Toronto University Press.
Jackson SJ (2014) Rethinking repair. In: Tarleton G, Boczkowski PJ and Foot KA (eds) Media
Technologies: Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA; London:
The MIT Press, pp. 221–239.
Jackson SJ, Pompe A and Krieshok G (2012) Repair worlds: maintenance, repair, and ICT for
development in rural Namibia. In: Proceedings of the 2012 computer-supported cooperative
work (CSCW) conference, Seattle, WA, 11–15 February, pp. 107–116. New York: ACM.
Joshi S and Pargman CT (2015) In search of fairness: critical design alternatives for sustainability.
In: Proceedings of the Fifth decennial Aarhus conference on critical alternatives, Aarhus,
17–21 August, pp. 37–40. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Kaitatzi-Whitlock S (2015) E-waste, human-waste, inflation. In: Maxwell R and Raundalen J,
Vestberg NL (eds) Media and the Ecological Crisis. Milton Park; New York, NY: Routledge,
pp. 69–84.
Kannengießer S (2016) Conceptualizing consumption-critical media practices as political partici-
pation. In: Leif K, Carpentier N, Hepp et al. (eds) Politics, Civil Society and Participation.
Tartu: Tartu University Press, pp. 193–207.
Kannengießer S (2017) ‘I am not a consumer person’—political participation in Repair Cafés.
In: Wimmer J, Wallner C, Winter R, et al. (eds) (Mis)understanding Political Participation.
Digital Practices, New Forms of Participation and the Renewal of Democracy. London:
Routledge, pp. 78–94.
Kannengießer S (2018) Repair Cafés as communicative figurations: consumer-critical media prac-
tices for cultural transformation. In: Hepp A, Hasebrink U and Breiter A (eds) Communicative
Figurations: Rethinking Mediatized Transformations. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 101–120.
Kannengießer S (in press) Acting on media for sustainability. In: Stephansen H and Treré E (eds)
The Turn to Practice in Media Research: Implications for the Study of Citizen- and Social
Movement Media. London: Routledge.
Kannengießer S and Kubitschko S (2017) Hacking and repairing as political engagement. In:
International communication association: interventions: communication research and prac-
tice, San Diego, CA, 25–29 May.
Lievrouw LA (2014) Materiality and media in communication and technology studies: an unfin-
ished project. In: Gillespie T, Boczkowski P and Foot K (eds) Media Technologies: Essays
on Communication, Materiality, and Society. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 21–51.
Kannengießer 139

Lin-Hi N and Blumberg I (2015) Social Entrepreneure als Change—Agenten für eine nachhaltige
Entwicklung—Neue Anreize für klassisches Unternehmertum. Umweltwirtschaftsforum 23:
171–176.
Lodato T and DiSalvo C (2016) Issue-oriented hackathons as material participation. New Media
& Society 18(4): 539–557.
McLuhan M (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marres N (2012) Material Participation: Technology, Environment and Everyday Publics.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marres N and Lezaun J (2011) Materials and devices of the public: an introduction. Economy and
Society 40(4): 489–509.
Maxwell R and Miller T (2012) Greening the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meier A and Mäschig F (2016) Sentiment-Analyse in der nachhaltigen Konsumforschung:
Potenziale und Grenzen am Beispiel der Fairphone-Community. In: Jantke F, Lottermoser J,
Reinhardt D, et al. (eds) Nachhaltiger Konsum. Institutionen, Instrumente, Initiativen. Baden-
Baden: Nomos, pp. 421–442.
Morley D (2009) For a materialist, non-media-centric media studies. Television & New Media
10(1): 114–116.
Mouffe C (2005) On the Political. New York: Routledge.
Quandt T and von Pape T (2010) Living in the mediatope: a multimethod study on the evolution
of media technologies in the domestic environment. The Information Society 26(5): 330–345.
Rosner D and Ames M (2014) Designing for repair? Infrastructures and materialities of break-
down. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work
& social computing, Baltimore, MD, 15–19 February, pp. 319–331. New York: ACM.
Rosner D and Turner F (2015) Theaters of alternative industry: hobbyist repair collectives and
the legacy of the 1960s American counterculture. In: Meinel C and Leifer L (eds) Design
Thinking Research. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 59–69.
Stöger G (2015) Premodern sustainability? The secondhand and repair trade in urban Europe. In:
Oldenziel R and Trischer H (eds) Cycling and Recycling: Histories of Sustainable Practices.
New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 147–167.
Tricarico T (2017) Mängel des Fairphone 1. Letzte Chance Secondhand. Available at: https://
www.taz.de/!5426933/ (accessed 18 July 2017).
United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future. Available at: https://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/
ares42-187.htm (accessed 24 May 2019)
van der Velden M (2014) Re-politicising participatory design: what we can learn from Fairphone.
In: Proceedings of the culture, technology, communication (CaTaC) (eds M Strano, H
Hrachovec, S Fragoso, et al.), 19–20 June, pp. 133–150. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Wang H (ed.) (2015) Communication and “The Good Life.” New York: Peter Lang.

Author biography
Sigrid Kannengießer is postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bremen, Center for Media,
Communication and Information Research, Germany. She studied media studies and political sci-
ences at the Universities of Hamburg and Bochum, Germany, and holds a PhD in communication
studies from the University of Bremen, Germany. Her research interests are in: materiality of digi-
tal media technologies, media practices, digital and political communication, sustainability and
media, media activism, and gender media studies.