Chris
Gomez
Professor
Brown
English
1B
20
February 2013
The Internet as a Lens
In our modern day and age, the
Internet is notable for contributing dramatically to many components of our
society. In a split second, anyone can log on and view a massacre in a third
world country that someone recorded the night before and tell the rest of the
world what they thought about it. Communication is probably one of the largest
advancements the Internet has provided. Anyone can participate in any heated
debate or intelligent discussion they wish to be a part of at any time of the
day. As generations move on, our nation is hearing more voices and perspectives
than ever before and more people now have access to large audiences where their
views and opinions can be heard and discussed. This huge shift into diversity
has even attracted political figures to provide for the discussion of political
issues of all kinds hoping that extending more topics to more people will
produce a more democratic form of society. The problem with this is that the
Internet has evolved exponentially and many prospects of its effects have not
exactly been anticipated. Opening more politics to the public has created a
vast diversity of debates that have actually led to more difficult attempts to
conflict resolution. This problem has further brought to attention what role
the Internet really plays in this political debacle. Many might argue that the
Internet has done wonders for democracy by attempting to include more of the
population into the nation’s progression. On the contrary, the Internet might
not be the cause of the issue at hand. By closely looking at the Internet’s
effects on diversity, the problems that online forums pose, and the seemingly
inconsistent constructs of our democracy, we can fully understand where to
place the blame for the faults of our system.
The Internet has allowed for
democracy to capitalize on one of its major cornerstones: diversity. Before
online forums were even a distant prospect of technological advancement, the
public distribution of information through earlier types of media had
significant regulations. In the 1930’s, a law was passed stating that in order
to publicly portray information through the media, a license must to be
obtained (Hanson). The license simply validated that the intent to release
information to the public was based on the public interest with respect to
various and diverse viewpoints. The issue here lies in the understanding of how
much of the public interest is being accounted for. Certainly, contemporary
minorities may not have had access to these media of information because of a
variety of reasons, namely, economic problems, and therefore may not have
participated in resolving public issues. Not all citizens of the nation were
able to absorb the flow of communication that the media was propagating; even
more noteworthy is that fact that much of public broadcast was executed by
large corporations and monopolized industries that tended to decrease the
diversity of information. With the influx of the Internet’s assortment of
capabilities, communication is definitely a prime advancement. Physical
distance is essentially eliminated as a setback and a vast majority of people
can come into contact with each other at any time of any day. Furthermore, free
Internet access has even reached neighborhood service centers where even the
financially- disadvantaged may play a role in public discussion and debate
(Sirianni). These advancements have allowed the unified consciousness to accept
more and more diversity into consideration. What isn’t seen as clearly,
however, is what this constantly diversifying consciousness is showing us about
our political ideology.
The extremes that the Internet
has taken diversity to have created some obstacles that affect the way we
practice solving social issues. Firstly, the “googlization” of the online world
gives anyone the opportunity to engage in any whim or conjecture they please.
Presumably, much of this is put to good use. Research papers may be more timely
written and research itself can be done quicker with more content being
absorbed. The problem lays in what media theorist Neil Postman calls the
“information glut.” It’s debatable how much of this information on the Internet
is relevant, however we can assume that one person won’t see a majority of it in
their lifetime. As far as an arbitrary definition for “useful”, in the context
of politics, not all of the Internet contributes to discussions of social
issues and debates and therefore isn’t “used” to progress mankind’s societal
constructs. Professor Jarice Hanson, in her analyses on technology’s influence
in society, has found that online discussions and debates tend to react to
information “overloads” by seeking comfort over being overwhelmed (Hanson).
Someone who is bombarded with a flood of opinions upon different topics over a
collection of different blog sites will naturally seek out the familiar tones
of their own opinions. Without the mitigation that the government previously
had on public media, the online forums have given rise to the “citizen media”
(Hanson). With more people present online more groups are produced. Different
individuals will seek out comforting conversations specific to their own values
and firmly stand by them as conversations progress. This inevitably creates a
problem when it comes to social debates mainly because a common ground is
hardly reached among such a large and diverse audience. Democracy ideals are
being fulfilled with this modern ability to join forces with any type of group
that exists but it has all but lengthened the pathway to a resolution. It’s
easy to see this as a problem in social debates, but taking it a step further,
an intrinsic flaw in our system of social equality is obscurely being revealed.
For many others, the Internet can
be seen as alleviating many restrictions in practicing democracy. Online forums
largely foster breeding grounds for debate; in many cases, collective action is
undergone in response to discussion (Dreznerq, and Farrell). In the interests
of personal health, people can discuss problems ranging from nutritional advice
to symptom diagnoses. Forums may not only provide competencies for debate on
various issues, but it can promote lifestyle changes where alternative opinions
can be exposed and considered by anyone. Although these aspects are essential
to have in a democracy, this “arena of interactions,” is contributing to
“non-democratic regimes” where its usefulness to the political spectrum is not
as credited (Dreznerq, and Farrell). So, in terms of “practicing,” the Internet
is definitely succeeding. Practically every opinion that exists or has ever
existed can be viewed, discussed, fortified, or challenged within the cyber
realm. This is exactly what our democratic philosophies encourage. When
politics get thrown into the equation, however, our government is hard-pressed
to find a resolution among the plethora of viewpoints within public debate
forums. Being able to voice your own opinion with confidence to a large
audience has contributed to more and more diversity. This just shows that
increased citizen involvement in politics doesn’t make anything easier. Professor
of Law Peter M. Shane points out that “the global public sphere should not be
expected to mirror the cultural unity” (Democracy
Online: The Prospects For Political Renewal Through The Internet). Yes,
it does tend to be fairer allowing all kinds of individuals to speak their mind,
but this fairness nullifies any prospects of reaching a common ground. This
takes the view away from the problems the Internet has caused and puts the
focus on democracy itself.
It’s basic fact that the Internet is
cultivating more and more opinions, but this doesn’t uphold the pragmatism of
democracy. Social equality can be met when, in a pure theoretical sense, the
resolution of a social issue meets the needs of all citizens of a nation. In
essence, everyone needs to be happy but order for that to happen, everyone
needs to want the same thing. Our nation’s emphasis on individualism and
standing out among others defeats this and cannot serve as a means to social
equality. Diversity supersedes social equality and only further convolutes a
unified consciousness. Such is the reason we have sovereign nations. There is
not a basis upon which everyone can find a common ground. Human nature is
responsible for this societal flaw in democracy, not the Internet. The Internet
has merely served to facilitate and make known to us the fallacies in social
philosophies. It can still be said, however, the Internet serves as a place for
the unprecedented practice of democracy. It allows us to maintain the
opportunity to exercise our rights but what needs to be understood is it isn’t
democracy that is being changed. The changes are the different components of
democracy we will be able to strengthen or weaken as we come to discover new
means of societal interaction, and as long as humans remain humans, these new
means will just teach us more about something we may never accomplish.
Biblography
Dreznerq,
Daniel, and Henry Farrell. "Blogs, Politics and Power: A Special Issue of
Public
Choice." Pubic Choice.
Vol. 134.No. 1/2 (2008): pp. 1-13. Print.
Hanson, Jarice. 24/7 : How Cell Phones And The Internet Change
The Way We Live, Work,
And Play. n.p.:
Praeger, 2007. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 20 Feb. 2013.
Shane, Peter M. Democracy Online : The Prospects For Political
Renewal Through The Internet.
n.p.: Routledge, 2004. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 20
Feb. 2013.
Sirianni, Carmen. Investing in Democracy: Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance.
Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press , 2008. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment