“Politics and citizenship, like the market, have burst the borders of the nation-state. Information and communication technologies (ICTs), primarily the Internet, have facilitated new forms of political expression and connection among groups and the growth of new public spaces”(Smith, 2001,p.116)
To what extent do you consider ICTs effective as a form of political expression and participation at global level?
Are the new public spaces fostered by the use of ICTs inclusive enough to challenge top-down processes of citizenship behaviour and to be real sites of contestation?
Has your approach to ICTs as a form of political organization changed in any way as a result of the role ICTs played in the last American elections?
Can you think of benefits and limitations that the use of ICTs provides for the construction of a more inclusive conception of Canadian citizenship ?
9 comments:
I do apologize for not having yet read the article; however, I did want to contribute to your discussion before class.
With regards to your first question, I have been thinking about the idea of more public spaces and collective communities that do not necessarily conflate notions of citizenship within the boundaries of the nation-state.
As I do think that there are possiblities with the use of ICTs to challenge conceptions of citizenship that serve to exclude and position others, I am leary that these ICTs won't serve as another forum to exercise our "educated view of the world of difference" (Willinsky, 1998, p.2)
I would like to consider this idea more, especially in connection to Anderson's notion of 'imagined communities.
I am in the process of reading the article and as soon as I have finished I will write some comments on you blog. Promise!
Myriam
hey Angelica,
starting the discussion this way is a very cool idea.
i'm pretty preoccupied (with essays) and exhausted right now, so my brain's a little fuzzy... but the question about the US election was too interesting to put off until after i've slept.
i think lots of people are re-evaluating lots of things in the wake of Obama's election - including their relationship with technology and cybercultures; specifically (in terms of your question) i think we're likely to see a resurgence of optimism about (the decentralized/grassroots potential of) ICTs. However, in the wake of Prop 8 in California i think we can all recognize the dangers of (reactionary) "grassroots" mobilization.
Myself, i lean towards the optimistic side (surprise), for reasons similar to some of what Slavoj Žižek (whom i'd never heard of until this week) says in this interesting article:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/webonly/
14/11/2008/zize01_.html
Essentially (i think) he's saying: the folly of cynicism is its lack of appreciation for the power of ideals and inspiration...
Looking forward to following up more tomorrow; thanks for putting this together.
ICTs have become an integral part of our daily discourse with the advent of the WWW. Blogs such as these and alternative media have democratized media and given more ideas voices than ever before.
In terms of the US elections we almost saw everything (including the debates) like one big television serial. ICTs brought elections into our living room and humanized the politicians something that never happened before.
Faiza Zia Khan
Hi Angelica,
Great questions. I am on line with everyone else regarding work and things, but this is a topic we can certainly all relate to as ICT consumers.
I think the idea of identities having borders is extremely interesting, and if anyone else is intrigued by this I highly recommend Gupta and Ferguson's article 'Beyond 'Culture': Space, Identity and the Politics of Difference' from Cultural Anthropology, 7:1 (1992). Its really interesting to see how language of 'public space' or 'sites of contestation' can construct these spatialised, limited positions for certain identities and social groups, and how this language is changing with global connections.
But then, as you so rightly urge us to consider, ICTs are changing this discourse.
Neverthless, ideas about using ICTs for provide a more 'inclusive conception of citizenship' still ignores those who do not have access to ICTs or for whom internet interactions are figured differently. I'm thinking of Aboriginal approaches to online engagements as being very different to Western ideas, or those social groups who do not have internet access.
Anyway, maybe figuring ICTs in these different ways might complicate the matter more! I look forward to hearing what everyone else has to say.
Hi All,
As Eleanor notes, different groups access ICTs in different manners, and we are still in the nascent stages of figuring out what kinds of possibilities exist with regards to collective identities. So far, the WWW has proven an unwieldy beast in terms of projecting how individuals make use of it.
Also, it is important to remember that nation states can have some influence on what gets transmitted over the www. I'm reminded of the time I spent in China and was unable to access Google for two weeks, as well as a number of 'western' sites such as CNN and the NYTimes.
Although I'm sure there are ways around this in terms of disseminating info and generating collective resistance, it goes to show that a 'nation state' is not an innocent entity and does have some control over what happens within its borders.
See you this afternoon,
Chris
ICTs definitely offer new possibilities, but at the same time, as with anything else, they have their limitations as well.
What came to my mind when reading the article is the newsletter I get from Greenpeace. There are always some kinds of petitions you can sign online or preformulated letters you can directly send to the corresponding agency. As the article suggests, with ICTs it can become very easy to take action. With that in mind, I wonder, if there are not many people signing and sending these drafts without even reading them, just assuming that it is in their interest since it comes from Greenpeace, for example?
In view of the Jiwani article, I also think there is a great potential of manipulation in these methods
I'll apologize for only posting at the last minute, but like others, my alibi is that I've been preoccupied by the essay and I throw myself at the mercy of the court. :)
I think Chris raised an excellent point with regards to governments being able to filter and restrict the use of ICT's. I was reminded of this earlier this week when a friend of mine in Thailand lamented that he couldn't stay up to date with his hockey pool because Yahoo has been blocked by the Thai government! :)
On a more serious note though, I think that examples such as this (and China of course) are evidence that the public space created by ICT's challenges many of the traditional top-down ways that citizenship and interaction have been regulated. Otherwise, there would be no need for governments to restrict access to them. The quesiton of ICT's inclusivity though makes me stop and think... and at this point I'm not sure. Certainly levels of internet access vary between Beijing and the rural areas of China so it's definitely something to think about.
With regards to Canadian citizenship, I think ICTs may very well allow for the construction of a more inclusive community. They do so by allowing a degree of anonymity that can remove the traditional markers of difference (race, gender, class, religion, etc.) For example, someone could post a comment to this blog with a nickname that didn't identify the user's gender, race, etc. in any way. Whether this is desirable or not is another matter, for if elements of an individual's identity must be removed for them to be included well that... that's a very scary proposition indeed.
See you in a few hours!
When I think of ICT's, I think of the wonderful opportunities that they have provided billions of people worldwide in accessing information, being involved in political organizing, and in some cases, supporting and making change. However, with the advent of ICT's, I also think about the further marginalization of the world's most vulnerable, who do not have the education or means to engage in ICT's, as a result of poverty. This makes me question whether or not ICT's are really INCLUSIVE enough to "challenge top-down processes of citizenship behaviour and to be real sites of contestation."
Isn't it ironic that when I have trouble with my computer and proceed to call a helpline, I end of being connected to and assisted by someone in Bangladesh or India. What does this say about the ICT industry?
Post a Comment