One
of the main themes from this week's reading (and, for that matter,
from the past few weeks) is the relationship between online
and offline behavior.
The readings
about politics online fall into two broad camps:
| The
"Internet changes political life only a little if at all" camp: Bimber,
Dahlberg, the Society Online chapters and Hardy / Scheufele
in
JoC. |
| The
"Internet has a significant impact on political life (though not
necessarily as it is traditionally assessed)" camp: Foot / Schneider
in JOBEM and the Pew study of the 2004 campaign. |
Another
way of looking at this is to consider the extent to which the Internet
has been "normalized" into our daily lives,
including our political lives (to the extent we have such a thing ... some
of us do, but others do not and perhaps never will to any significant degree). |
A
little context, much of which is outlined nicely in Dave's reading:
A decade ago, there was a great deal of utopian rhetoric about the
potential of the Internet as a transformative democratic force.
| One
reason was straight out of Lippmann: The vast quantity of information the medium provided, from a vastly expanded number of diverse sources,
would so enhance our knowledge that our democracy (based on an
informed citizenry) would necessarily flourish. |
| The
other reason was straight out of Dewey -- and Habermas (keynote
speaker at the 2006 ICA convention!) who built on Dewey's ideas
in formulating the concept of the public sphere: The medium's communicative
capacity was, again, so vastly expanded that it enabled
true public discourse to occur and hence our democracy (based on
a free
exchange
of ideas) would necessarily flourish. |
What do
you think?
The
medium cannot change human nature ... but the Internet's
strengths do connect with the requisite components of democratic
behavior.
What
are the Internet's key strengths in this context, and what effects
seem reasonable to expect?
Is
it possible for a communication technology to lead to greater
political engagement? Or is that asking too much of our citizens
-- and our technology? |
One
possibility is that the technology can enhance participation
for some citizens (potentially, though some observers would debate
this, greater numbers than have participated in the past) but
will not enhance
it for
all.
If
so, is that desirable? Is it enough to get more people
engaged, even if getting all people engaged
is hopeless -- or does that just exacerbate an existing problem? |
The
use of online media as part of the democratic process also makes
us vulnerable to their abuse by traditional political actors
in (at least) two different ways:
| Potential
for tyranny of the majority: Only those who have
online access will be able to make their voices heard. The “have-nots” may
become even more marginalized over time. |
| … But
also for tyranny of the minority: Small but vocal (and Web-savvy)
groups can spread their message so pervasively online that
they can exert undue influence over the democratic process. |
Which
is the greater threat? Why?
What
are the implications for the notion of the public sphere?
|
|
I
made up a handout on the theoretical readings from Bimber ("The Internet
and Political Transformation") and Dahlberg ("Computer-Mediated Communication
and the Public Sphere").
Here are
some thoughts and questions about the other syllabus readings ...
In
the Society
Online chapter about
online voting, Stromer-Galley suggests that
although some people, particularly younger ones, are intrigued
by Internet voting, it is
not necessarily seen as better than existing alternatives.
Even
those who find it difficult to get to a polling place do not
view the Internet as a good option, possibly because of
concerns about security and/or surveillance.
Those
who do say they would prefer to vote online aren't the people
who seem likely to vote anyway; they lack significant interest
in politics or a feeling of duty to vote.
Would you prefer to vote online? What would be the benefits? What
would be your concerns? |
The
Society Online article about the Internet and political
involvement in 1996 and 2000 serves mostly
as a counterpoint to the Pew study of the 2004 campaign.
In
these earlier years, at least, the Internet was a venue for some
political activity, and there were modest associations of online
use with political activity of various kinds. But the changes
were far from radical and did not alter long-standing demographic
predictors of political engagement (age, education, income). |
With
the Journal of Communication article by Hardy and Scheufele,
we see hints of a shift. The authors build on the "differential
gains model," which suggests that talking about politics helps
people gain information from media sources and thus increases
their willingness to participate.
That
is, the more people talk about politics, the more information
they obtain from both
traditional
and non-traditional
sources ... and the more likely they are to participate
in political
activity.
Those three
aspects are interrelated -- and all three are directly supported
by the Internet.
The
authors rightly caution about making any causal inferences from these
findings. But which seems more plausible to you: Does the Internet
spur participatory behavior, or are respondents who are already
more likely to participate in political action also
more likely to be online and to chat about politics? Might both be
true? Are there mutual interaction effects to consider?
|
Foot
and Schneider, in their article titled "Online Action in Campaign
2000," challenge the "normalization" hypothesis. After looking
at nearly 5,000 different Web sites, they say the Internet is
making a significant contribution to the public sphere
in three
ways:
| Co-production:
Joint production of online content by disparate actors. They
include both individual features (for instance, "candidate
match" features) and whole sites; more controversially, they
include links as
a form
of co-production. |
| Carnival: Online actions that transgress or invert established social
and political mores, norms, and hierarchies. These include
everything from e-mailing jokes to creating (or accessing)
parody sites. |
| Mobilization: An
attempt to persuade someone to persuade others to take political
action. Examples include promoting civic engagement,
issues or candidates; vote swapping; and protest. |
The 2000 election, they say, "provided a platform for political
actors to experiment with new modes of communication. The Web also
provided
novel ways for citizens and other actors to engage in the electoral
process."
What do you think of their categorization of online political action?
What do these categories suggest about the direction in which democracy
may evolve? To connect with Charlie's article ... how might such forms
of online political action translate across cultures? |
Finally,
the Pew Internet & American Life study offers a look at the latest
election cycle. The findings suggest a rather dramatic
increase in use of the Internet for a variety of political purposes,
including information and communication ... as well as co-production,
carnival and mobilization.
What
has changed over the past two election cycles to account for the
change? Do these findings challenge those of earlier scholars
and theorists ... or are the Pew people being overly optimistic
in connecting use of the medium to its actual effects on democracy?
The
related commentary by Pew's Michael Cornfield especially highlights
innovations stemming from the Howard Dean campaign
in 2003 -- innovations that capitalized on the participatory nature
of the medium. Clearly,
these innovations (including blogs, online referenda, meetups
and a general decentralization of political activity) were effective
in the short
term ... but ultimately, they did not carry Dean to the nomination.
Why not (the scream aside)? What are the potential implications
for the campaigns of 2006 and 2008? What can we expect next time(s)
around? |
|