CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Social and Cultural DynamicsEthics and Social Impacts of AIElite Sociology and Global Capitalism

Algorithmic Meta-capital: Bourdieusian Analysis of Social Power Through Algorithms in Media Consumption

Open access
Lundahl, Outi·2022·Information, Communication & Society
DOI 10.1080/1369118x.2020.1864006
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Algorithms make highly consequential decisions and, thereby, exercise considerable power. In this study, I investigate how social power through algorithms is exercised in media consumption, particularly through curation algorithms. This conceptual paper then contributes to the understanding of social power through algorithms by suggesting the concept of algorithmic meta-capital. The concept derives from Bourdieu’s theory on meta-capital which has also been applied to legacy media. I then argue that this algorithmic meta-capital is an extension of the power traditionally held by the state and legacy media. The study also contributes to the understanding of meta-capital as it proposes how the meta-capital possessed by digital intermediaries functions. It does so by legitimating representations of the world and by creating a necessity for algorithmic visibility across different fields, thereby shaping habitus. This Bourdieusian approach enables researchers to take a balanced view on the power of algorithms on the structure/agency continuum.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1369118x.2020.1864006

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some LIS scholars have adopted more nuanced views of agency to conceptualize the complex interactions between sociotechnical systems, social change, and information-related professional and scholarly practice.

    “Some LIS scholars have adopted more nuanced views of agency to conceptualize the complex interactions between sociotechnical systems, social change, and information-related professional and scholarly practice.”

    From Transcending Binaries of Agency through Librarians’ Discursive Constructions of AI (2025) · cites this paper as Lundahl 2022

    The Conclusions describe a nuanced account of agency in which consumers are guided, but not fully restricted, by social and cultural structures. The Algorithmic visibility section also applies the framework to academic search and scholarly visibility. The paper does not identify these scholars as LIS scholars or extend its account to information-related professional practice broadly. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Lundahl proposes that LIS researchers and practitioners examine 'the process by which algorithms wield social power'.

    “Lundahl proposes that LIS researchers and practitioners examine”

    From Transcending Binaries of Agency through Librarians’ Discursive Constructions of AI (2025) · cites this paper as Lundahl 2022

    In the Algorithms section (page unavailable), Lundahl says her article focuses on “the process by which algorithms wield social power.” The Conclusions (page unavailable) describe a map for future Bourdieusian studies, but the paper does not direct this proposal specifically to LIS researchers or practitioners. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 57

  1. Askegaard, S., & Linnet, J. (2011). Towards an epistemology of consumer culture theory: Phenomenology and the context of contexts. Marketing Theory, 11(4), 381-404. https://doi. org/10.1177/1470593111418796 · DOI
  2. Bechmann, A., & Nielbo, K. L. (2018) Are we exposed to the same "news" in the news feed? Digital Journalism, 6(8), 990-1002. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1510741 · DOI
  3. Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google scholar's ranking algorithm: An introductory overview. In B. Larsen & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI'09), 1, 230-241.
  4. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985-1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1461444809336551 · DOI
  5. Berman, R., & Katona, Z. (2020). Curation algorithms and filter bubbles in social networks. Marketing Science, 39(2), 296-316. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2019.1208 · DOI
  6. Berry, D. (2014). Critical theory and the digital. Bloomsbury.
  7. Boczkowski, B. J., & Mitchelstein, E. (2016). The gap between the media and the public. In C. Peters & M. Broersma (Eds.), Rethinking journalism again (pp. 175-187). Routledge.
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Routledge.
  10. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
  11. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Polity Press.
  12. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press.
  13. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164-1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159 · DOI
  14. Bucher, T. (2018). If … then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
  15. Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Allison, P. D. (2014). Insiders, outsiders, and the struggle for consecra- tion in cultural fields: A core-periphery perspective. American Sociological Review, 79(2), 258- 281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414520960 · DOI
  16. Couldry, N. (2003). Media meta-capital: Extending the range of Bourdieu's field theory. Theory and Society, 32(5-6), 653-677. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RYSO.0000004915.37826. · DOI
  17. Couldry, N. (2004). Liveness, "reality," and the mediated habitus from television to the mobile phone. The Communication Review, 7(4), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714420490886952 · DOI
  18. Creech, B., & Mendelson, A. L. (2015) Imagining the journalist of the future: Technological visions of journalism education and newswork. The Communication Review, 18(2), 142-165. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2015.1031998 · DOI
  19. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x · DOI · Paper page
  20. Fitchett, J., & Caruana, R. (2015). Exploring the role of discourse in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1497 · DOI
  21. Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (2019). Generalised scepticism: How people navigate news on social media. Information, Communication & Society, 22(12), 1751-1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1369118X.2018.1450887 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167-194). The MIT Press.
  23. Gillespie, T. (2016). #Trendingistrending -when algorithms become culture. In R. Seyfert & J. Roberge (Eds.), Algorithmic Cultures: Essays on meaning, performance and new technologies (pp. 52-75). Routledge.
  24. Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors' Comment: So, what Is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Goffey, A. (2008). Algorithm. In M. Fuller (Ed.), Software studies -A lexicon (pp. 15-20). MIT Press.
  26. Grenfell, M. J. (2008). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. Routledge.
  27. Haim, M., Graefe, A., & Brorius, H. (2018). Burst of the filter bubble? Effects of personalization on the diversity of google news. Digital Journalism, 6(3), 330-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21670811.2017.1338145 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Holt, D. B. (1997a). Distinction in America? Recovering Bourdieu's theory of tastes from its critics. Poetics, 25(Nov), 93-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-422X(97)00010-7 · DOI
  29. Holt, D. B. (1997b). Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: Conceptualizing the social patterning of consumption in postmodernity. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(4), 326-350. https://doi. org/10.1086/209487 · DOI
  30. Holt, D. B. (1998). Does culture capital structure American consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25(June), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1086/209523 · DOI
  31. Humphreys, A., & Latour, K. A. (2013). Framing the game: Assessing the impact of cultural rep- resentations on consumer perceptions of legitimacy. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 773- 795. https://doi.org/10.1086/672358 · DOI
  32. Ignatow, G., & Robinson, L. (2017). Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the digital. Information, Communication & Society, 20(7), 950-966. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1301519 · DOI
  33. Jacsó, P. (2011). Google Scholar duped and deduped -the aura of "robometrics". Online Information Review, 35(1), 154-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521111113632 · DOI
  34. Johnston, J. (2016) Social news = journalism evolution? How the integration of UGC into news- work helps and hinders the role of the journalist. Digital Journalism, 4(7), 899-909. https:// doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1168709 · DOI
  35. Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087 · DOI
  36. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., & Rothschild, D. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359 (6380), 1094-1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Longford, G. (2005). Pedagogies of digital citizenship and the politics of code. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 9(1), 68-96. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne2005916 · DOI
  38. Mager, A. (2012). Algorithmic ideology. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 769-787. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.676056 · DOI
  39. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Montfort, N., Baudoin, P., Bell, J., Bogost, I., Douglass, J., Marino, M. C., … Vawter, N. (2012). 10 PRINT CHR$ (205.5 + RND (1)): GOTO 10. MIT Press.
  41. Napoli, P. (2015). Social media and the public interest: Governance of news platforms in the realm of individual and algorithmic gatekeepers. Telecommunications Policy, 39(9), 751-760. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2014.12.003 · DOI
  42. Nielsen, R. K. (2016). News media, search engines and social networking sites as varieties of online gatekeepers. In C. Peters & M. Broersma (Eds.), Rethinking journalism again (pp. 81-96). Routledge.
  43. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and infor- mation. Harvard University Press.
  44. Peters, C., & Broersma, M. (2017). Rethinking journalism again: Societal role and public relevance in a digital age. Routledge.
  45. Peterson, M. A. (2003). The Ethnography of media production. In M. A. Peterson (Ed.), Anthropology & mass communication: Media and Myth in the New millennium (pp. 161- 198). Berghahn Books.
  46. Russell, A. (2016). Networked journalism. In T. Witschge, C. W. Anderson, D. Domingo, & A. Hermida (Eds.), Sage handbook of digital journalism (pp. 149-163). Sage.
  47. Schwartz, D. L. (2002). The sociology of habit: The perspective of pierre Bourdieu. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 22(1_suppl), 61S-69S. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 15394492020220S108 · DOI
  48. Seaver, N. (2019). Knowing algorithms. In J. Vertesi & D. Ribes (Eds.), digitalSTS: A field guide for science & technology studies (pp. 412-422). Princeton University Press.
  49. Steel, J. (2016). Reappraising journalism's normative foundations. In C. Peters & M. Broersma (Eds.), Rethinking journalism again (pp. 35-48). Routledge.
  50. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and hap- piness. Yale University Press.
  51. Thorson, K., & Wells, C. (2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309-328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087 · DOI
  52. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic Harms Beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of Computational agency. Colorado Tech Law Journal, 13, 203-217.
  53. Valkenburg, P. M., Peter, J., & Walther, J. B. (2016). Media effects: Theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 67(1), 315-338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033608 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2016a). Emotion and journalism. In T. Witschge, C. W. Anderson, D. Domingo, & A. Hermida (Eds.), Sage handbook of digital journalism (pp. 128-144). Sage.
  55. Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2016b). Is there a 'postmodern turn' in journalism? In C. Peters & M. Broersma (Eds.), Rethinking journalism again (pp. 97-112). Routledge.
  56. Webster, J. G., & Ksiazek, T. B. (2012). The dynamics of audience fragmentation: Public attention in an age of digital media. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 39-56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1460-2466.2011.01616.x · DOI
  57. Willson, M. (2017). Algorithms (and the) everyday. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 137-150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1200645 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lundahl, O.
Affiliations
University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Lundahl, Outi
ORCID
Lundahl, Outi
Venue
Information, Communication & Society
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-12-30
Volume
25
Issue
10
Pages
1440-1455
ISSN
  • 1369-118X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-4462
DOI
10.1080/1369118x.2020.1864006
OpenAlex
W3112572096
Cited by
29
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 4
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Information Communication & Society (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Cultural Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Elite Sociology and Global Capitalism
Keywords
social power, algorithms, media use, Pierre Bourdieu, online intermediaries, habitus, algorithmic visibility, structure and agency, traditional media, state power

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review