The issue that I found most interesting within the readings is related to the sense of our political duties as they relate to society and the implications that technology has on democracy. The article by Mark Kann was interesting because it really solidified the a few ideas that I already had. "In recent years, we have seen a broad disenchantment among people with civic engagement and representative democracy," states Kann, and within the mid 1990's it appeared as if things were bound for a change with the internet. He gives three methods in which the internet promoted democracy:
extended communities for broad forums of discussion,
many to many citizen interactions that invite political action,
and polling being made easier through people's expression.
But within a few years, "theorists and advocates of digital democracy" started to see the "populist majority as uniformed, impulsive, and materialistic." These opinions were created whenever people look at the populist majority's preference of "Internet pornography and commerce" over civic and political engagement. With the rise of this growing sense of political apathy, digital democrats feel the need to educate and improve public opinion of the system. But the author later posits that because internet discussion is generally "undisciplined, intolerant, and superficial" that it is not suited for online talk intended to "produce sober, wise recommendations for policy-maker and law-maker consideration. So the point is that perhaps the internet is not suited for such a high level of "disciplined, facilitated discussion...more suited to the halls of Ivy League universities." Most importantly the author has determined that some individuals should be unwelcome in a public forum debate. Those who are "impulsive, impassioned, self interested...people of faith, [who] are commited to a singular version of truth, morality and virtue...social and political..activists" are all individuals with ideas that are corrupted by a greater idea that makes them incapable of compromise and thoughtful and forward thinking discussion.
But to this end I wonder, is this all new? Is this dissention in democratic thought borne from our networked society? I believe the key speakers from the videos, Digital Youth, Social Movements, and Democracy in Brazil and Networks, Power and Democracy both had very similar ideas. The civil society, one that has discourse and discussion, as summarized by Saskia Sassen has been used by the technology where conversely in the world of finance, technology has been altered to fit its ideals. From this, Raquel Recuero states that technology has exemplified the issues that harm democracy and the global presence allows more consumers to see that is the case.
There are substantial uses of technology for democratic good but as Sassen has stated, there may have to be some creative destruction to maximize the benefit. She also suggests that we need to invent new political formats for technology to be effective in that means. Recuero, and her evaluation of Brazil's digital youth, is on the way to maximizing the technologies abilities for discourse with their direct link to the President and their ability to solve pollution problems, but there are still issues that need to be solved so that everyone can participate and be involved in a reworked civil society where morality and good intentions reign supreme.
I'm just wondering, what would Sassen and Recuero would think of Barack Obama's campaign that relied heavily on networked culture. I'm sure Sassen would have thought that it was not a completely sincere attempt but Recuero may have thought that it was a good attempt to reach the masses.
References:
Kann, Mark E.. "More or Less Democracy in the Internet Age?." Networked Publics. N.p., 6 Oct. 2005. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
"Raquel Recuero - Digital Youth, Social Movements, and Democracy in Brazil Connected Learning." Connected Learning. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
"Saskia Sassen: Networks, Power, and Democracy - YouTube." YouTube. Kazys Varnelis, 23 Mar. 2006. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
"Most importantly the author has determined that some individuals should be unwelcome in a public forum debate. Those who are "impulsive, impassioned, self interested...people of faith, [who] are commited to a singular version of truth, morality and virtue...social and political..activists" are all individuals with ideas that are corrupted by a greater idea that makes them incapable of compromise and thoughtful and forward thinking discussion."
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion that pretty much rules almost all of us out, especially the qualification of "impassioned." Anybody who is not impassioned about the issues isn't going to care enough to participate anyways. Don't get me wrong, I understand what the author is saying, but I think it brings up an opportunity and rationale for all of us to look at ourselves and ask "do I fit those descriptions?" And if so, can we be both productive and respectful in our deliberations and discourse. I don't think it is something that comes natural to most, we have to work at it consciously.
Matthew and Erik,
ReplyDeleteThis section of readings brings up so many things that rely on a cultural and behavioral framework that the impassioned participant or the intensity of those with faith etc. are dominating and thus restricting a true political discourse in this participatory reality. Perhaps the political tone and structure of the nation or community frames all discourse on politics and may hinder what we would ideally like to see the technology serve......for what does it mean to be an informed consumer of knowledge or perspectives or of political theory and truth? How do we 'excite' one to care? How do we help those who are passionate to be productive and respectful..Can we?