This
week we explored a couple readings and videos related to citizenship and
democracy as a result of social networks, the Internet, and other forms of
digital media. I found these to be interesting as previous subjects and blog
posts from a number of students in the class have brought this issue up quite a
bit, and now we were able to see it addressed directly from people with
research based expertise. One theme that kept getting my attention was that
while it was commonly agreed that such tools have created a new dynamic in
society with real potential for good, there are a number of unforeseen, and often undesired, issues and
consequences that arise.
First,
as Saskia Sassen mentions numerous times in her video lecture talk Networks, Power, and Democracy, the
networked domains, despite their openness, cannot be expected to produce well distributed
outcomes (Varnelis, 2006). She uses the blogosphere to illustrate her point and
argues that there are sociological factors that end up directing the majority
of traffic to the same places, recreating a conventional few-to-many model. At
the same time, the lower traffic areas of the blogosphere has a better
distribution of thoughts and ideas but they are not seen or read by many, and
the few that do participate are often just agreeing with each other or
rehashing the same ideas and arguments over and over, which doesn't really get
the results that these networks were designed for.
Second,
as pointed out in the group discussion video that focuses on the research of
Raquel Recuero titled Digital Youth,
Social Movements, and Democracy in Brazil, social networks and digital
tools designed for participatory involvement have the tendency for political
issues and debate to polarize as opposed find common negotiated ground (Connected
Learning, 2012). When one reads somebody else’s opinion or argument on an
issue, if it doesn't agree with theirs, they get upset and do one of three
things. They either restate their opposite opinion, choose to not participate
further for fear of judgment or other social implications, or result to
offensive verbal (textual) attacks. This was the one aspect of the readings and
videos that I connected with on a personal level. I briefly touched on this in
one of my earlier blog posts in the course. If you notice a large percentage of
online news articles, or YouTube videos related to political issues, there are
often tools provided under the articles and video windows that allow people to
comment, much like blogs. If you read the comments, they are always extremely
polarized, rarely constructive in terms of finding common ground and
compromise, and very often contain offensive language and rude aggression
towards people with opposite opinions.
In
fact, one of the most recent political issues in the United States has been
addressed extensively in social networks and digital media, and I personally
find the whole thing extremely ironic. The issue was the shutdown of the
government over debate of the Affordable Care Act, commonly referred to as
Obamacare. The politicians were obviously polarized in their views, which
created the whole conflict that led to the shutdown. The public was outraged
and the public networks became filled with suggestions that all of the
politicians should be fired or their pay withheld until they could resolve the
issue and move forward. The notion seemed to be that they should “do their job’
and by doing their job they were suggesting that they should “negotiate” and “compromise”
and both sides kept blaming the other side for not negotiating, not
compromising. The ironic part was that if you tried to find public comment
about what a good compromise would be, or any public comment suggesting
reasonable negotiation, it didn’t exist, or was rarely evident. Instead,
anybody who tried to contribute anything of substance to the debate was
abruptly met by someone on one side or the other accusing the individual of not
understanding their side and therefore their “uninformed” opinion should not be
considered. Essentially, the same public demanding the politicians work
together were just as polarized as the politicians were, and what they really
meant when they said they should ‘work together to find common ground” really
meant the other side should give in to what we are asking for.
In
reflecting on the last few weeks, I am seeing a common message coming to the
surface, and it came to the surface again this week at the end of the Recuero
video, that education should play a major role in addressing these negative symptoms
of public networks so that the true potential, which most all experts on the
subject matter seem to agree is present, can be realized for the better of our
community, our nation, and the world. In W. Lance Bennet’s Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age, he makes the quote…
“Yet for all the tangential
incursions of politics into the social and play environments of digital media,
the sphere of more explicitly youth-oriented politics remains comparatively isolated
and underdeveloped.” (Bennet, 2008).
So, if this is true, which I personally believe it is, then
how do we correct this? Sassen calls for the creation of new political models
and framework. I agree. However, I think it also calls for new educational
models as well.
REFERENCES
Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital
age. Civic life online: Learning how digital
media can
engage youth, 1, 1-24. Retrieved from
Connected
Learning, (2012), Digital youth, social movements, and democracy in brazil, retrieved
from
Varnelis, K.
(2006), Networks, power, and democracy, retrieved from
