Nick Couldry (2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics After Neoliberalism, London: Sage.

[for beginning of social media section]
Voice stands for the human capacity to exert agency. But this is never enough or something that requires effort. But voice is ignoring and marginalized: "We are experiencing a contemporary _crisis_ of the voice…" as Couldry puts it (2010, 1). The ability to voice things is offered but is rendered illusionary by the forces of neoliberalism that doesn't care about voice as it is lies outside the interests of the market. 

It can broadly agreed that there are two kinds of voices: the obvious sound of someone speaking but beyond this there is the sense in which voice without sound can also communicate; and secondly in the sphere of politics there is the voice that stands for an expression of opinion as part of a politics of representation. In addition, Couldry identifies two levels: voice as _process_ and voice as _value_ to point to the "frameworks for organizing human life and resources" that devalue voice (2010, 2). In other words, attention is paid to the conditions under which voice is undermined as political process or force. Couldry's concern is to foreground a politics of the voice that recognizes the capacity for social cooperation in this way rooted in the human condition. After all, "Voice is socially grounded" (2010, 7). This is a material precondition both through language acquisition and other processes of recognition but also through embodiment rooted in the relation between voice and action. Couldry cites Arendt to confirm how actions disclose us as subjects (2010, 8) and through the voice particularly so. Voice can thus be understood as a form of agency not mere babble. In this sense it goes beyond speech or discourse, something that will be returned to in relation to Kelty's concept of a 'recursive public'. But rather than recursively, Couldry talks about reflexivity, and how the voice allows the speaker to reflect upon their use of their voice in saying something and doing something. 
  
[intro?] 
The relationship to politics is crucial for the argument as the voice operates within and beyond politics (2010, 3). Thus he challenges Aristotle's distinction between voice (phoné) and speech (logos) where speech is take to be the privileged site of political action whereas voice is simply an animal-like capacity to utter sound (from _Politics_). Voice re-enters the discussion on account of the need to focus on the biopolitical preconditions (in the way that Agamben argues in relation to 'bare life') and to focus on the most basic and fundamental aspect of expression goes to the root of the problem. This allows for an opening up the conditions of possibility for change in the face of overpowering forces close and oversimplify discussion. "Voice is undermined by rationalities which take no account of voice and by practices that exclude voice or forms of its expression." (2010, 10) From this, Couldry asks, "Is neoliberalism perhaps a voice-denying rationality in this different but important sense?" (11). The rationality of markets do not offer voices but an empty individuation through processes of governmentality. For Couldry, the difference is that markets do not require "reflexive embodied agents; but the voice does" (2010, 11). Voice points to the limitations of the organizational model and the freedoms it purports to offer. Indeed the forces of globalization tend towards homogenization, yet the voice emphasizes the plurality of human forms.