1501HUM Final Online Essay
Question 4:
What are the uses/limits of the internet in terms of politics and/or democracy? Should we rethink the nature of the political? What happens to the nation/state in the age of networks that have the potential to span the whole planet? What has happened to the idea of "community" in the age of networked digital media? Discuss with an example
The concept of democracy and communication of a political nature is one of the many ways in which the internet is used. This has proven to be very successful yet also still has many limits to the success of this use of new media technology. The idea of “community” has changed substantially now that networked digital media crosses all geographical boundaries and has endless limits to the places that people can connect with other people. Therefore the nature of the political and community values have changed due to this interaction with democracy and politics and the changing dynamics of online communities reaching all around the globe.
The internet, especially its main, the World Wide Web creates many opportunities for the concept of democracy and for political interactive and active involvement. Websites like Access2Democracy are available to online users and they provide the “study and analysis of e-democracy issues and the involvement of the citizens in this field” (Access2democracy.org). This gives people information concerning local and federal governments and their democratic efforts. These websites are a vehicle for mass communication and interaction yet the opening up of this link of technology to politics also has its limits and boundaries. The access to this form of technology is in no way democratic at all; it is based on wealth, status and education of which the population of democratic countries are not balanced. The costs of the hardware especially computers and charges of telecommunications systems like broadband and cable internet make access to this technology limited which doesn’t comply with the concepts of democracy; “So participation in this kind of democracy must be confined to those people who have access to the funds for purchase of computer equipment, and literacy in the technology to take an active role in information exchange” (Jacobs 1998). This relies very much on self education and personal interest if one is to search out political policies online or participate in democratic forums. Although many in Australia do have access to these technologies, this does not however mean that they are computer literate and there is little advantage in democracy when only limited parts of the population can be involved.
Participation in the democratic process is also limiting when linked to the use of new communication technologies especially the internet. Through studies it has shown that the people who get involved in democratic activities online are mainly the well-educated elite. The lack of literacy especially with new communication technologies reduces the participation and leads to people avoiding this type of involvement. There needs to be a push for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to get involved in e-democracy and political interaction online. “It is hoped this will be achieved by the production of a counterculture that stems from the new possibilities of technology.” (Mattelart and Piemme 1980, p328). E-democracy blogs like e-voting.cc allow more access and encourages this online participation through a comprehensive and understandable program of voting for people to be involved in. All individuals have a right to these forms of democracy yet the goals of e-democracy are not all that realistic as not everyone has the opportunities or knowledge to be involved. “The idealism around the Internet is not only the old discourse that accompanies new technology, it is also trying to change inegalitarian aspects of the social structure” (Thornton 2002, p 7).
The idea of “community” has changed, now that geographical boundaries do not limit the interaction on digital networking sites. Websites like Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/) and MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/) are increasingly popular due to the ways that they connect people from around the world. "In sum, online communities are enabling Internet users to build bridges to other groups and people, while at the same time deepening ties to groups and ideas with which people are already involved” (Horrigan et al 2001). It is these choices made by consumers that make these digital networking sites more like communities in the ways that they link people together and this has come about due to the desire to stay connected and to feel part of a community that has diminished within our current society. “To the extent that the desire for satisfying human connections is a permanent feature of the human condition, the expansion of choice was bound to trigger an acute sense of loss, now expressed as a longing for community” (Galston 1999). So to stay connected and involved the online communities like Facebook and Myspace provide this sense of fulfillment.
Online communities provide this basis of staying in touch with people yet expand the limits of this far beyond your neighbor or region and these new communication technologies still carry the values of a community by involving people with shared understandings and interactive relationships (Galston 1999). Nowadays on the internet communities are developed through common interests not proximity; “Life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity” (Licklider and Taylor in Galston). The search for community has been satisfied with online interaction as it provides a basis for individualism and exploration that until now has been much harder to accomplish in daily society. "Because individuals — rather than households — are separately connected, the internet and the cell phone have transformed communication from house-to-house to person-to-person. This creates a new basis for community that author Barry Wellman has called “networked individualism”: Rather than relying on a single community for social capital, individuals often must actively seek out a variety of appropriate people and resources for different situations.” (Rainie et al 2006). This also changes the nature of the political with more individualism created there is a need for governance online that cannot be accomplished with the concepts of true democracy at the forefront.
The nature of what is seen to be political changes from government and governance controlling what we as citizens are allowed to view to an open environment where this mass communication allows for a huge sharing of information. The strong demand for communities and the need for active participation in online democratic forums open up a whole new challenge to governments that has previously been unnecessary before these new communication technologies were produced. "The advent of cyberspace presents tough new challenges for conducting political conduct. If nothing else, cyberspace leads states and societies toward the issues of e-governmentality in which many new means for conveniently arranging things and people through e-commerce, e-learning, e-medicine, e-community, and e-democracy must remediate the mechanisms behind the conduct of conduct (Jones 1993 in Luke 2004 )."
There are so many uses of the internet especially the World Wide Web for political and democratic involvement yet these are limited by access, literacy to these tools and participation. The nature of what is political changes due to the consumer push for online communities and the popularity of such community groups as Facebook and Myspace. Online communities give acceptance and interaction across geographical boundaries and make the possibilities for connections endless. The internet allows for communities to be developed through common interests rather than proximity and this in turn challenges our governments to accept the increase in this use of new communication technologies and encourage political interaction through online democratic forums.
Question 4:
What are the uses/limits of the internet in terms of politics and/or democracy? Should we rethink the nature of the political? What happens to the nation/state in the age of networks that have the potential to span the whole planet? What has happened to the idea of "community" in the age of networked digital media? Discuss with an example
The concept of democracy and communication of a political nature is one of the many ways in which the internet is used. This has proven to be very successful yet also still has many limits to the success of this use of new media technology. The idea of “community” has changed substantially now that networked digital media crosses all geographical boundaries and has endless limits to the places that people can connect with other people. Therefore the nature of the political and community values have changed due to this interaction with democracy and politics and the changing dynamics of online communities reaching all around the globe.
The internet, especially its main, the World Wide Web creates many opportunities for the concept of democracy and for political interactive and active involvement. Websites like Access2Democracy are available to online users and they provide the “study and analysis of e-democracy issues and the involvement of the citizens in this field” (Access2democracy.org). This gives people information concerning local and federal governments and their democratic efforts. These websites are a vehicle for mass communication and interaction yet the opening up of this link of technology to politics also has its limits and boundaries. The access to this form of technology is in no way democratic at all; it is based on wealth, status and education of which the population of democratic countries are not balanced. The costs of the hardware especially computers and charges of telecommunications systems like broadband and cable internet make access to this technology limited which doesn’t comply with the concepts of democracy; “So participation in this kind of democracy must be confined to those people who have access to the funds for purchase of computer equipment, and literacy in the technology to take an active role in information exchange” (Jacobs 1998). This relies very much on self education and personal interest if one is to search out political policies online or participate in democratic forums. Although many in Australia do have access to these technologies, this does not however mean that they are computer literate and there is little advantage in democracy when only limited parts of the population can be involved.
Participation in the democratic process is also limiting when linked to the use of new communication technologies especially the internet. Through studies it has shown that the people who get involved in democratic activities online are mainly the well-educated elite. The lack of literacy especially with new communication technologies reduces the participation and leads to people avoiding this type of involvement. There needs to be a push for people of all socio-economic backgrounds to get involved in e-democracy and political interaction online. “It is hoped this will be achieved by the production of a counterculture that stems from the new possibilities of technology.” (Mattelart and Piemme 1980, p328). E-democracy blogs like e-voting.cc allow more access and encourages this online participation through a comprehensive and understandable program of voting for people to be involved in. All individuals have a right to these forms of democracy yet the goals of e-democracy are not all that realistic as not everyone has the opportunities or knowledge to be involved. “The idealism around the Internet is not only the old discourse that accompanies new technology, it is also trying to change inegalitarian aspects of the social structure” (Thornton 2002, p 7).
The idea of “community” has changed, now that geographical boundaries do not limit the interaction on digital networking sites. Websites like Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/) and MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/) are increasingly popular due to the ways that they connect people from around the world. "In sum, online communities are enabling Internet users to build bridges to other groups and people, while at the same time deepening ties to groups and ideas with which people are already involved” (Horrigan et al 2001). It is these choices made by consumers that make these digital networking sites more like communities in the ways that they link people together and this has come about due to the desire to stay connected and to feel part of a community that has diminished within our current society. “To the extent that the desire for satisfying human connections is a permanent feature of the human condition, the expansion of choice was bound to trigger an acute sense of loss, now expressed as a longing for community” (Galston 1999). So to stay connected and involved the online communities like Facebook and Myspace provide this sense of fulfillment.
Online communities provide this basis of staying in touch with people yet expand the limits of this far beyond your neighbor or region and these new communication technologies still carry the values of a community by involving people with shared understandings and interactive relationships (Galston 1999). Nowadays on the internet communities are developed through common interests not proximity; “Life will be happier for the on-line individual because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity” (Licklider and Taylor in Galston). The search for community has been satisfied with online interaction as it provides a basis for individualism and exploration that until now has been much harder to accomplish in daily society. "Because individuals — rather than households — are separately connected, the internet and the cell phone have transformed communication from house-to-house to person-to-person. This creates a new basis for community that author Barry Wellman has called “networked individualism”: Rather than relying on a single community for social capital, individuals often must actively seek out a variety of appropriate people and resources for different situations.” (Rainie et al 2006). This also changes the nature of the political with more individualism created there is a need for governance online that cannot be accomplished with the concepts of true democracy at the forefront.
The nature of what is seen to be political changes from government and governance controlling what we as citizens are allowed to view to an open environment where this mass communication allows for a huge sharing of information. The strong demand for communities and the need for active participation in online democratic forums open up a whole new challenge to governments that has previously been unnecessary before these new communication technologies were produced. "The advent of cyberspace presents tough new challenges for conducting political conduct. If nothing else, cyberspace leads states and societies toward the issues of e-governmentality in which many new means for conveniently arranging things and people through e-commerce, e-learning, e-medicine, e-community, and e-democracy must remediate the mechanisms behind the conduct of conduct (Jones 1993 in Luke 2004 )."
There are so many uses of the internet especially the World Wide Web for political and democratic involvement yet these are limited by access, literacy to these tools and participation. The nature of what is political changes due to the consumer push for online communities and the popularity of such community groups as Facebook and Myspace. Online communities give acceptance and interaction across geographical boundaries and make the possibilities for connections endless. The internet allows for communities to be developed through common interests rather than proximity and this in turn challenges our governments to accept the increase in this use of new communication technologies and encourage political interaction through online democratic forums.
References:
Access2democracy 2009, “About-misson statement” by Andreas Papandreou (Chairman of the Board), accessed via http://www.access2democracy.org/content/mission-statement
E-voting.cc (last updated 2009), Austria, accessed via http://www.e-voting.cc/topics/News/
Facebook 2009, http://www.facebook.com/
Galston, William 1999, “Does the Internet Strengthen Community?”, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, Maryland School of Public Affairs, accessed via http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/internet_community.htm
Horrigan, John et al 2001 (Lee Rainie, Susannah Fox), “Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties”, Pew Internet & American Life Project, accessed via http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Online-Communities.aspx
Jacobs, Joanne 1998, “DEMOCRACY AND THE INTERNET”, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs under the Discovering Democracy programme. accessed via http://www.abc.net.au/ola/citizen/interdemoc/democ.htm
Luke, Timothy 2004, “The Politics of Cyberspace” in Encyclopedia of Government and Politics. Second Edition. Ed. Mary Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan . Routledge, 2004. Routledge Reference Resources online. http://www.reference.routledge.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/subscriber/uid=1793/entry?entry=w022_w022b84
Myspace 2009, http://www.myspace.com/
Mattelart, A and Piemme, J-M. (1980) "New means of communication, new questions for the left" in Media, Culture and Society Volume 2(4).
Rainie, Lee et al 2006 (John Horrigan, Barry Wellman, Jeffrey Boase), “The Strength of Internet Ties” in Communities, Social Networking (Jan 25, 2006). Pew Internet & American Life Project, accessed via
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Strength-of-Internet-Ties.aspx
Thornton, Alinta (updated) 2002, “Does Internet Create Democracy” in Ecquid Novi Vol 22(2) 2001, p 126. Accessed via http://www.zipworld.com.au/~athornto/
Access2democracy 2009, “About-misson statement” by Andreas Papandreou (Chairman of the Board), accessed via http://www.access2democracy.org/content/mission-statement
E-voting.cc (last updated 2009), Austria, accessed via http://www.e-voting.cc/topics/News/
Facebook 2009, http://www.facebook.com/
Galston, William 1999, “Does the Internet Strengthen Community?”, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, Maryland School of Public Affairs, accessed via http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/IPPP/fall1999/internet_community.htm
Horrigan, John et al 2001 (Lee Rainie, Susannah Fox), “Online Communities: Networks that nurture long-distance relationships and local ties”, Pew Internet & American Life Project, accessed via http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2001/Online-Communities.aspx
Jacobs, Joanne 1998, “DEMOCRACY AND THE INTERNET”, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs under the Discovering Democracy programme. accessed via http://www.abc.net.au/ola/citizen/interdemoc/democ.htm
Luke, Timothy 2004, “The Politics of Cyberspace” in Encyclopedia of Government and Politics. Second Edition. Ed. Mary Hawkesworth and Maurice Kogan . Routledge, 2004. Routledge Reference Resources online. http://www.reference.routledge.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/subscriber/uid=1793/entry?entry=w022_w022b84
Myspace 2009, http://www.myspace.com/
Mattelart, A and Piemme, J-M. (1980) "New means of communication, new questions for the left" in Media, Culture and Society Volume 2(4).
Rainie, Lee et al 2006 (John Horrigan, Barry Wellman, Jeffrey Boase), “The Strength of Internet Ties” in Communities, Social Networking (Jan 25, 2006). Pew Internet & American Life Project, accessed via
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2006/The-Strength-of-Internet-Ties.aspx
Thornton, Alinta (updated) 2002, “Does Internet Create Democracy” in Ecquid Novi Vol 22(2) 2001, p 126. Accessed via http://www.zipworld.com.au/~athornto/
.JPG)
.JPG)
The Kulla
