The Crazed Man’s Words

A now an essay about digital citizenship:

The interconnectivity of the digital age has transformed our social, political, and economic landscapes. We now live in an age where information is one of the hottest commodities and at almost every moment of our daily lives we are somehow connected to the internet- jacked in. We have access to great amounts of information and we can become knowledgeable about our options, thereby making more informed decisions.

Nearly every American citizen has a public and private presence on the internet either through their work or personal usage. One of the most important decisions we make in our democratic society is who we elect to represent us in our government, both on the local and federal level. The democratic republic that we live in is not a true democracy but for our population size it is a more practical choice. This process of representation is paramount to citizenship; the ability to elect others to represent us in our government is what we have come to expect by being citizens. This whole process has come unto much scrutiny in our current time as the percentage of voters is not the ideal one hundred percent as we would wish. It is understandable that this may be true because our populous country has an enormous degree of issues in debate that determine voters one way or the other, yet only a select minority reach the public through mainstream media. However many have to come to claim that through the new information age we, society, have a better ability to put all these issues up for debate. This expansion of the public sphere through the internet is a huge significance for the democratic process. It is believed that through the process of critical discussion different and better outcomes can be achieved. Through new and more open, diverse media they promote a wider variety of issues to our media-hungry nation:

“The emergence of new media technologies supports a democratic urge to allow more people to create and circulate media. Sometimes the media are designed to respond to mass media content- positively or negatively- and sometimes grassroots creativity goes place no one in the media industry could have imagined.” Jenkins, p. 258

The ease at which one person can comment on a news story, post a video of their perspective of events, and rally others behind a specific cause is dramatically different from the options of the television age. In the internet age there is a new model of communications and media that continually breaks the fourth wall allowing, or sometimes even demanding, the viewer to give feedback instantaneously. This divergence from top-down transmission is not only a technical breakthrough but a cultural one, playing into the ties between culture and the media.

“The challenge is to rethink our understanding of the First Amendment to recognize this expanded opportunity to participate. We should thus regard those things that block participation- whether commercial or governmental- as important obstacles to route around if we are going to ‘democratize television’ or any other aspect of our culture.”

Jenkins, p. 258

Here Jenkins recognizes the social and political responsibility of new media technology. Both “culture” and “media” are inextricably interconnected to one another because they each are made and comment on one another through different technologies. This relationship is even more present where the internet can have such an immediate impact on the daily life of every citizen. And yet the value of this relationship is how it hasn’t necessarily changed but become much more vast and complex with new media technologies.

This leads me to the new idea of the informed citizen in the digital age; it proposes a different model over than the traditional voter or member of a community. Our current educational system teaches us the ability to read and write – the standards of a democratic system; however with the introduction of such an expansive and accessible public sphere, participation enters into this new definition. The participation of a citizen in debate of their opinions and views about current issues marks a significant change in our understanding of what it means to be an informed citizen because of the increased level of communication between individuals. This emphasis on participation is explained a bit further by Jenkins.

“Historically, public education in the United States was a product of the need to distribute the skills and knowledge necessary to train informed citizens. The participation gap becomes much more important as we think about what it would mean to foster the skills and knowledge needed by monitorial citizens: here, the challenge is not simple being able to read and write, but being able to participate in the deliberations over what issues matter, what knowledge counts, and what ways of knowing command authority and respect.” pp. 258-9

In a traditional model this would be too overwhelming without a physical space large enough to hold together the spectre of debate. Simultaneously there are too many people and issues to emphasize all at once. However the digital public space is ethereal and practically endless; it is virtually ideal. The public education system can and has welcomed the digital public space to a limited amount; many youths today are taught to use computers in classrooms and navigate the world wide web for research and current events. I remember being in high school during this transition to digital education models using new media. However I, alongside most of my generation, was far superior at utilizing the internet over the instructor. The informed citizen is a parallel term for the virtual citizen because of the extent to which they operate- a virtual citizen is someone who knows how to navigate and find what they are looking for through the internet.

“The ideal of the informed citizen is breaking down because there is simply too much for any individual to know. The ideal of monitorial citizenship depends on developing new skills in collaboration and a new ethic of knowledge sharing that will allow us to deliberate together.” Jenkins, pp. 258-9

The idea of information sharing or knowledge communities is realized in new Web 2.0 sites like Wikipedia.org. This virtual encyclopedia touts a huge database that rivals traditional subscription based websites through much more current posts. The beauty of Wikipedia is also its pitfall- as any member can submit, edit, or retract information, though to certain limits. Wikipedia is a great tool that garners a huge number of hits a day and is a part of the larger digital social movement, a term usually restricted by definition to generation, that demands immediate results. As Jenkins was cited before, the digital age requires changes to extend the rights of the First Amendment to these new technologies and methods of communication for the sake of the citizenry. There remains a question to then ask: is digital citizenship a viable model? Will our society become “analogophobic” and utilize only the digital, connected media?

The largest problem to the digital citizenship movement or transition is akin to the introduction of any new media technology. Like the radio before it, television did not clearly mark the end of all popular radio broadcasts; television now occupies the prime real-estate or peak audiences of after dinner entertainment. However the cultural practice of listening to the radio is not foreign or odd as AM and FM stations are the still very popular with a huge audience on their daily commutes to, during, and from their work. This transition happened then and is happening now: the internet is slowly replacing television as the dominant cultural media practice.

“Many industry leaders argue that the main reason that television cannot continue to operate in the same old ways is that the broadcasters are losing younger viewers, who expect greater influence over the media they consume. Speaking at MIT in April 2004, Betsy Frank, executive vice president for research and planning at MTV Networks, described these consumers as ‘media-actives’ whom she characterized as ‘the group of people born since the mid-70s who’ve never known a world without cable television, the vcr, or the internet, who have never had to settle for forced choice or least objectionable program, who grew up with a what I want when I want it view attitude towards media, and as a result, take a much more active role in their media choices.’ Noting that ‘their fingerprints are on the remote,’ she said that the media industry was scrambling to make sense of and respond to sharp declines in television viewership among the highly valued 18-27 male demographic as they defected from television toward more interactive and participatory media channels.” Jenkins, p. 244

These changes happen for several reasons but generally due to the generations of users who find themselves appropriating the new technology as their primary medium into the world. This generation gap still maintains a large divide because computers and the internet are a much different technological model from television and radio. Simultaneously the habits and social practices of internet usage are much more broad, open, unregulated, and interactive as warranted by the base of users and those who create the internet itself. This creates a situation of convergence, as described by Henry Jenkins:

“Convergence represents a paradigm shift – a move from medium-specific content toward content that flows across multiple media channels, toward the increased interdependence of communications systems, toward multiple ways of accessing media content, and toward ever more complex relations between top-down corporate media and bottom-up participatory culture. Despite the rhetoric about ‘democratizing television,’ this shift is being driven by economic calculations and not by some broad mission to empower the public.” p. 243

The beauty of this new convergence is how the ramifications have wholly affected our society and are likely to continue. Digital citizenship is part of this larger movement of social media that includes blogging, video sharing, and social networking. Every aspect of social media can relate to digital citizenship because of the personal expression found in the use of these technologies. Here the use of the word “personal” doesn’t necessarily intend that everyone using the internet is posting or communicating with their real name and information. Rather what everyone shares through the vast size of the internet and its sheer number of users infers individual posts and opinions. Interestingly enough anonymity is also an important part of to the participation of digital citizenship.

The ability to anonymously contribute information or at least use an alias or username provides a level of separation from a citizen to their post to whichever social media. This doesn’t however separate the individual from their beliefs, and often is the case that more often than not users don’t abuse the anonymity to sabotage a discussion or process. The significance of anonymous contributions through the screen of protection from one’s true identity is that it renders all users the same. Whereas in the physical public sphere one’s appearance is the most obvious detail for an audience to prejudice, a username or an avatar only provide a glimpse into someone’s composition. Membership is something that certainly can set small restrictions, but most of the public sphere meeting points on the internet do not maintain membership as to guard away minority voices but keeps spammers accountable. Anonymity in this sense is a democratizing process that is oft neglected in discussions about the benefits of a digital public sphere. Within this context a public is freer to converge without fear of reprisal or immediate negation. On the other hand exposing one’s identity and background through their social media can also work as a positive outlet for a more diverse, democratic society. Our social media habits not only include visiting and reading the sites of ours family, friends, and colleagues, but also people we don’t know personally and wouldn’t know personally for whatever reason. Yet through these new media technologies we can build a picture of a person through the information that they allow us to have access to. Joining groups through social media sites is a very easy and popular way to build support behind anything from a potential political candidate to a drink named after golfing legend Arnold Palmer. In this instance through the process of opening up and divulging information a society can have more equal access.

An interesting model to look at in reference to the idea of digital citizenship is the organization MoveOn.org. Originally founded during the 1998 impeachment process of President Clinton, the creators, Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, “shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation’s focus at the time” ¹; MoveOn was their response to push for a “move on to pressing issues facing nation”.² The organization boasts over three million members that has been gathered at a steady rate through the lasting presidency of George W. Bush, which posits about 1% of the total American population. This collection of citizens is a varied political- party- affiliated combination. Blades and Boyd broadened their organization’s goals by renaming to MoveOn.org and becoming a political action committee to help elect progressive candidates. Their website serves a liberal focused agenda where current issues are reported and campaigns are started against pertinent issues. Through their organization they send weekly newsletters, communiqués, and any other relevant information from their ongoing campaigns to their members- all using new digital media technologies, primarily email. An interesting section they have arranged on their website is the “Recent Success Stories” page. These two pages, one for 2006-today and one for 2004-2005, highlight how their members across all fifty states have helped certain candidates become elected, pressed for issues to be covered more publicly, donated money to certain civic or political causes, and signed numerous petitions for and against on-going political issues both domestic and international. MoveOn.org has built and maintained a devout following because they give the average, lowly citizen a tangible course of action to affect the political process.

The significance of MoveOn.org is how their internet activism has reached so many different people across the United States. Though founded and formulated in and around our nation’s capital, Blades and Boyd have built an extensive assemblage from all corners of the United States. They have devoted followers who choose to support many, if not all, their causes very quickly and approvingly. The activism and success of MoveOn.org is akin to a politically motivated type of crowdsourcing; “the act of taking a task traditionally performed by an employee or contractor, and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people, in the form of an open call,”³ very similar to Wikipedia’s approach. They focus the time and energy of their membership towards a specific issue en-masse and are much more likely to raise awareness in the larger populous and potentially solve a problem or push for legislation. MoveOn.org represents a complete example of a digital citizenry at work. Organizations like MoveOn.org exploit the differences between traditional media and new media- interactivity, immediate response, and collaboration as opposed to dissemination. Through the spectrum of new media the convergence traditional democratic processes transition to digitally connected outlets and are exponentially amplified. This newer model allows the informed citizen to troll through the internet to find places for them to read, write, and participate in ongoing discussions. Though MoveOn.org claims success for their organization, can their model be employed for a larger percentage of the United States population? For me it would not be difficult to imagine voting online in the future or through email ballots; of course security is a concern but there are business incentives already in place to increase the detection of fraud. To many, it remains a difficult task to continually juggle real life and virtual life (or lives) as each require a concentrated effort, but digital citizenship is something that can improve the public sphere. This advancement requires only that we continue the trends already in place and develop further social habits involving newer media technologies. As newer technologies are unveiled we must protect them from consumerism and continue towards a more liberating democratic society. We must continue the effort for equality and through this newer model it is ever more achievable.

“Consumers will be more powerful within convergence culture- but only if they recognize and use that power as both consumers and citizens, as full participants in our culture.” Jenkins p. 260

And a little Foucalt before I go.

Notes

1. Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, “About the MoveOn Family of Organizations”, April 10, 2008, http://www.moveon.org/about.html.
2. Ibid.
3. Information taken from the Wikipedia entry “Crowdsourcing”, on April 10, 2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing.

References

Carr, Nicholas (2008) The Big Switch: Rewiring The World, From Edison to

Google. W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York.

Jenkins, Henry (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide.

New York University Press: New York.

Tapscott, Don (1998) Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation.

McGraw-Hill Publishing: New York.

Travers, Ann (2000) Writing the Public in Cyberspace: Redefining Inclusion on

the Net. From the Series American Popular History and Culture. Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York.