Week13--The Internet Today
Does electronic media, which includes computers, the Internet, and a range of other technologies, isolate people, provide new ways to connect, or does it simply supplement existing relationships? As this transition or evolution takes place, what is the long-term effect on community and civic involvement? Computer mediated communication (CMC) is nether the destroyer nor the savior of interpersonal relationships and community, but does appear to be facilitating flexible, spatially dispersed social networks in which each person uses it to meet such needs as collaboration and a sense of belonging. Calhoun acknowledges that the Internet does encourage public discourse, but the discourse is not “with a density of connections that facilitates much effective political action” (p. 392).
These “density of connections” can only occur within a public space where ways are found “to encourage mutual engagement simultaneously across significant differences of identity and interest, and across considerable social and spatial distances” (Calhoun, p.391). The Internet is a powerful medium because it provides users with multiple communication options -- print, broadcast and point-to-point interaction – in one place, but it is not a new or virtual public space for democracy to flourish. In fact, Calhoun argues that the kind of public life the democracy must depend upon had been eroding before the Internet became a pervasive part of society through the decentralization of cities which led to less power relationships and less public discourse. He does not see CMC changing that course.
Empirical evidence is beginning to show that Internet users are no different than non-users when measured for civic engagement. Internet use may enhance social capital that is there is an increase in participation in community networks and activities and which in turn, may have a positive indirect effect on political participation. There’s a lot that’s still unknown and the technology is not standing still. It continues to evolve allowing for more interactivity and more opportunities for those users with less expertise to use many different communication capabilities of the emerging electronic media. So in a sense, researchers are studying a moving target. I agree with Calhoun’s assessment that the Internet hasn’t surpassed the impact of television and radio, because it hasn’t been around long enough for any systemic changes to take place.
So the question is, are we studying the right dimensions of the emerging electronic media? Previous research has focused on the individual. Perhaps it is time to step back and examine the institutions and “social actors” that are shaping the Internet and the other emerging communication technologies. As the DiMaggio article points out, we need to understand how political and economic decisions that are emerging are having an impact on individual users and how that might constrain behavior. Historically, technologies developed or evolved in response to the agendas of powerful social actors. For example, radio was designed for use by the military, embraced by amateurs and commercialized by entrepreneurs. Who are the social actors that are shaping and developing the Internet and the emerging and corresponding information management technologies? What is their agenda and is it appropriate? Research should, as Calhoun suggests, take different approaches and look for today’s communities and then study the role of computers and other modes of communication within them or study the range of different forms of social solidarity and how does CMC figure into it.Economic and commercial interests are driving the development of the technologies on the Internet and that may or may not limit it from achieving its full cultural and political potential. The fact that 85% of web site visits are to 5% of all web sites shows either a movement to a common meeting area or the dominance of powerful manipulators of information such as MSN. Democracy may be running in second place to capitalism on the Internet as Calhoun says, but the potential is there in the new decade for it to play a role in democracy. According to Habermas, the early press arose out of capitalism and the merchant class’s thirst for shipping news and yet many years later, deTocqueville saw the press as the cornerstone to democracy in the U.S.
These “density of connections” can only occur within a public space where ways are found “to encourage mutual engagement simultaneously across significant differences of identity and interest, and across considerable social and spatial distances” (Calhoun, p.391). The Internet is a powerful medium because it provides users with multiple communication options -- print, broadcast and point-to-point interaction – in one place, but it is not a new or virtual public space for democracy to flourish. In fact, Calhoun argues that the kind of public life the democracy must depend upon had been eroding before the Internet became a pervasive part of society through the decentralization of cities which led to less power relationships and less public discourse. He does not see CMC changing that course.
Empirical evidence is beginning to show that Internet users are no different than non-users when measured for civic engagement. Internet use may enhance social capital that is there is an increase in participation in community networks and activities and which in turn, may have a positive indirect effect on political participation. There’s a lot that’s still unknown and the technology is not standing still. It continues to evolve allowing for more interactivity and more opportunities for those users with less expertise to use many different communication capabilities of the emerging electronic media. So in a sense, researchers are studying a moving target. I agree with Calhoun’s assessment that the Internet hasn’t surpassed the impact of television and radio, because it hasn’t been around long enough for any systemic changes to take place.
So the question is, are we studying the right dimensions of the emerging electronic media? Previous research has focused on the individual. Perhaps it is time to step back and examine the institutions and “social actors” that are shaping the Internet and the other emerging communication technologies. As the DiMaggio article points out, we need to understand how political and economic decisions that are emerging are having an impact on individual users and how that might constrain behavior. Historically, technologies developed or evolved in response to the agendas of powerful social actors. For example, radio was designed for use by the military, embraced by amateurs and commercialized by entrepreneurs. Who are the social actors that are shaping and developing the Internet and the emerging and corresponding information management technologies? What is their agenda and is it appropriate? Research should, as Calhoun suggests, take different approaches and look for today’s communities and then study the role of computers and other modes of communication within them or study the range of different forms of social solidarity and how does CMC figure into it.Economic and commercial interests are driving the development of the technologies on the Internet and that may or may not limit it from achieving its full cultural and political potential. The fact that 85% of web site visits are to 5% of all web sites shows either a movement to a common meeting area or the dominance of powerful manipulators of information such as MSN. Democracy may be running in second place to capitalism on the Internet as Calhoun says, but the potential is there in the new decade for it to play a role in democracy. According to Habermas, the early press arose out of capitalism and the merchant class’s thirst for shipping news and yet many years later, deTocqueville saw the press as the cornerstone to democracy in the U.S.
posted by Vicky Hildebrandt at
6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home