This article is about the Politics of the Internet. This explains how the web slowly gradually transitioned from an empty space of nature to a fully-fledged civil society complete with an economy, political body and social hierarchy. The Internet has also been used by many groups who come together using platforms to organise and rally around a common cause.
The Great Transition
At a time the Net was like a Lockean state of nature, as David Resnick likes to describe it (1998: 51-52, 54). Individuals were indeed free and equal, each user was a producer and a consumer and while some were more skilled in certain technological crafts than others, there was no real divide in labour. Cyberspace stretched from virtual horizon to virtual horizon but was never really settled. There was also no real effort to shape the opinions and actions of the mass public. Communities within cyberspace formed around common interests and differences in opinions served to spur thought and discussion. The Internet was really a place for users to live a simple life and generally have fun. All that changed when certain parties recognised the Net as a form of productive labour, where currency justified the reason for people to work for a wage. The induction of currency means that law, civil society and politics must be introduced and Resnick suspected that something similar happened on the net. Once the potential of the Net being used as a form of productive labour was discovered, the impending value for time spent online increased dramatically. Thus institutions, organisations, practices and politics began to crop up all over the web, implementing their own ideals and inducting their agendas and ideas using innovations in technology and developing them within cyberspace. The web had transitioned from a virtual state of nature, to a virtual civil society, complete with its own economy, business outcasts and even social and labour inequalities. Politics on the Internet had moved away from communities engaging in discussion and debate to an era of organised civil society and structured group diversity with a relatively inert citizenry. Only those who are highly knowledgeable of technology will be able to thrive in this virtual society while reality continues to resemble its real life counterpart and the inhabitants of cyberspace, as well as the political institutions and business practices will proceed to join in the struggle for power, wealth and influence from having the most friends on a social website to gaining enough power to manipulate the opinions and actions of the public.
Economic and State Power in Cyberspace
Civil societies that exist today require governance, surveillance and regulation to keep a watchful eye on its citizens. Regulation of the Internet by the state is a possibility from the growth of digital networks and the agenda to regulate the net is contained within technology development. This has sparked debate on the state’s capacity to regulate the Internet and the potential to undermine sovereignty. The status of the Internet as a decentralised network of networks, has given leeway to the notion of the Internet’s built-in autonomy from state power to enhance democracy by strengthening both market society and access for society. However, its openness and technological capacity presents an opportunity for control and limitations. In the last few years, Internet software design has been focused on secure intranets and firm-to-firm transactions. Also the interest in e-commerce has strengthened the development of identity, trademark protection and billing. Working through this process may ensure a secure transaction but does not particularly strengthen the openness of the Internet. The growth of this type of software is in contrast of software which intended to work towards a more open Internet which was the case in the earlier stages of the Internet. The more authoritative software being developed sets up conditions of copyrighting which can lead to charging what can be designed as copyrighted use/access, included a charge per use. The work of political entities and technicians brought about more control of the Internet and more control mechanisms have been placed in order to facilitate discrimination in access to or to distribute some goods or service and ultimately facilitate e-commerce (Sassen, 2007: 582-584).
Regulation and the Internet
There must be some kind of authority overseeing the essential features that allow users to carry out their activities over the Internet having to do with addresses and numbers granting and the domain name systems. What it indicates is that representation of the net as escapism is simply inadequate. This authority is not akin to any regulatory authority but rather a body of gate-keeping which raises the possibility of oversight. Management involves control and assignment of numbers that computers require to locate addresses. It can instruct all the top root servers, the computer executes the inquiry and the recent actions will accept the functions. It was not formalised because its origins were from the first phase of the Internet. This power is held by a group of scientists who invented the computer protocol standard that made the net what it is today. For over 20 years they have debugged the system not necessarily under contract for by any agency. It is a de facto group intent on making the net workable since its beginnings. The function of assigning addresses was for many years under the casual control of one particular scientist who named this function the Internet Assignment Numbers Authority. This group oversees the nets address system and represents a formalisation of the earlier authority. Also the US Government’s Framework for Global Electronic Commerce suggests that regulation should be kept to a minimum due to the Internet’s global reach and technological progression. It even suggests where a few areas where rules are needed, such as privacy and taxation and that policies should be made by quasi-governmental bodies such as the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). This kind of proposal is cause for concern due to the lack of transparency and the problems that come with it. This is evident from one of the dilemmas of the Internet: cybersquatting, where private speculators size valuable corporate brand-names and sell them back on the Internet to the companies at ludicrous prices. Net addresses are important for establishing an identity online, thus companies bulldoze their rule that they are entitled to any domain names using their trademark. Since the Net is used for more than e-commerce, this unfairly alienates the rights of schools, museums and other non-commercial Net users. The deliberations that have taken place at WIPO mainly involve large business firms working behind closed doors and privatise efforts to design regulations for the Internet. This represents a major operational opening for some sort of governance or control. While the Internet continues to grow, there appears to be growing concern for the necessity of a more accountable system, signalling the sectors that want to strengthen and develop this authority. Some would argue that there is no need for any form of regulation or coordination referring to the Internet as more decentralised network of networks and that an attempt to implement external regulation would be ineffective, while others focus on the establishment of system property rights and other protection methods and how to impose them. Questions on how to govern the Internet continue to be raised and will ultimately decide how the whole of the Internet will be governed, either through a multilateral organisation or through a sort of constitutional government pertaining to the Internet (Sassen, 2007: 584-586).
Technopower and Cyberpower in Virtual Society
Users are defined by their virtual identity and style and how they use it with online communities. An identity can be read from an e-mail address, an avatar or any other form of data while style is their behaviour and how their style of interaction is recognised within communities. Users are judged by markers including their addresses, usernames, signatures and styles. Individuals’ offline may not be the most sociable people and perhaps are deemed unpopular, but on the Net it may be the complete opposite. They may be the most popular user on a social networking site and be the most talkative and contribute the most to online forums. A form of power is given to the user to use abilities such as identity building,
Everyone who uses the Internet relies on a range of technologies that allow users to travel through cyberspace. Any action such as buying or messaging can only occur when the user is within an electronic space developed and maintained by various hardware and software. There is a heavy reliance on technology in cyberspace and they are what allow any user to carry out their desired action. Individual powers are defined by the technology used and what they offer. The Net is not about the powers that individuals can use but about the mechanisms that create those powers for all users whom are collective bodies that create and restrain the nature of individuality in cyberspace since communities provide the basis for users constituted by technologies. Technopower is the constant shift between peripherals, hardware and software and the social/ethic values influenced by the designers and developers. Their ethics and ideals went into these mechanisms and the users see that when users look beyond the lifeless appearance of these technologies. Technopower in cyberspace is governed by a heavy reliance on technological tools which enables users to feed their ever increasing appetite for information (Jordan, 2007: 594-599). (http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/3i/3i_1.htm Accessed May 12, 2011)
The users who are able to grasp the technology needed to traverse through cyberspace will be who benefits the most out of the information superhighway, while those who are unable to work with the functionality of technology will be left behind and looked down upon. Kelly McWilliam (2010) recalls how cyberspace is dominated by a digital generation who incorporates racist, sexist and technophobian ideologies into their exclusionary discourse to preserve the technological elite. Many users are marginalised for their lack of knowledge of Internet technologies, their social class and even physical signifiers such as race and gender. In this age where advanced technology is found in the material world and within cyberspace, it is the technological elite that find a place in the upper echelon of cyberspace.
(http://www.politicsandculture.org/2010/08/10/cyberpolitics-kelly-mcwilliam-2/) Accessed March 7, 2011)
Internet Activism
The emergence of the World Wide Web have allowed various online communities to form, discussing a wide breath of issues ranging from their favourite books to current political affairs. Debates continue to rage all over the net about the state of the Internet and technopolitics. Some would argue that the Internet has created a platform for a division of the Web into sub groups with special interests which overall creates fragmented communities, while others would say that information on the Internet is reduced to cultural noise and rendered effective-less which may be termed to a new stage of Communicative Capitalism (Kahn and Kellner, 2007: 618).
Since the Web has transitioned into a virtual civil state with the intention of control, order, civility and surveillance, there will no doubt be users and communities who will show discontent of the virtual state and believe the old utopian ideology that the Web is to be free of any form of state regulation. Also major events which affect the world will draw major attention. Thus we see emergent technologies and communities interacting as tentative forms of self-determination and control from below with Internet citizen activist organising politically on issues including information transparency, capitalist globalisation, war, ecological destruction and other forms of oppression. Web based technologies have enabled groups to organise and rally around a common cause. The Internet has allowed these groups to effectively communicate with each other to organise rallies, protests and even events with a chaotic and violent agenda. Oppositional groups within cyberspace have advocated for online rights, freedom of information and piracy. Hackers use their skills for political purposes. Web platforms such as Blogs, Wikis and social networks have given activists the means to express their views and promote their agenda all over the web since they are relatively easy to create, maintain and edit even for non-technical users. They are also a popular choice for activists to use as their platform since they represent the next evolution of web-based technologies which connect to new media. These groups will use the technology and methods at their disposal to have their voices heard and whatever goals they are working towards realised (Kahn and Kellner, 2007: 619-621,627).
Conclusion
There is no doubt that the utopian ideal of a virtual world were all are equal and free is beyond reach with the establishment of a civil society on the Net. Organisations and institutions are continuing to find new ways to regulate how the internet functions for a more orderly, managed and civil use of the Internet. It may be necessary to implement such a system so that e-commerce, social networking and other online activity may go unhindered and benefit the users. However this act from corporations may be seen as a means to dominate and control virtual society and undermine the sovereignty of the internet. There is also an unfair advantage in favour of the digital elite and users who are not quite tech-savvy are still left behind and looked down upon. However with the emergence of platforms that enable user created content with no prior knowledge of technology required, perhaps the tide may turn in favour of the digital rookies someday as platforms and applications become easier to use. Yet there is another possibility that users will demand more advance tools to acquire more information, thus adding to the complexity of the Internet and still alienate those outside of the circle of the digital elite (Jordan, 2007: 599).
(http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/3i/3i_1.htm Accessed May 12, 2011)
Finally for groups and individuals who wish to express their views and organise events that will have their voices heard by the state, there is no better platform to use than the internet. It is far easier to communicate with members all over the world and creating an online base of operations is relatively easy even for non-technical users. Groups may use the Internet to highlight an issue for the state to address which will make life better for everyone. Some of these groups however, may use the Internet to advocate for less noble means such as violence and hatred of others outside their group and may go as far as to organise events with intent of causing harm to which they deem as outside their group as well as the state.
Politics proceed to shape and change the way the Internet is used. Organisations and institutions want a more regulated Internet, the technological elite still have the upper hand and groups are advocating whatever goals they are working towards. This is a political and on-going struggle for recognition, regulation and even dominance of Cyberspace.
Taking your first line “Civil societies that exist today require governance, surveillance and regulation to keep a watchful eye on its citizens”. To take Foucault’s (1977) view for instance. He would argue that it is not keeping a watchful eye on the citizens through surveillance that keeps the order of citizens, but it is instead the fear of being surveyed, and in turn the discipline that this breeds. “Visibility is a trap” (Foucault, 1977) expresses how the citizen is bathed in surveillance, therefore automatically assumes they are being watched. However, as Althusser (1984) would say, These surveillance technologies don’t interpellate the subject, meaning that there is no way for the citizen to know that they are doing wrong. Traditionally, a policeman walking down the street could vocalise disapproval at a subject breaking the law, and this is what the individual became fearful of, being singled out amongst peers as a wrongdoer. In a modern surveillance society where a CCTV camera cannot tell the person that they are doing wrong, it may become easier for society to turn away from traditional discipline and gamble on whether they are actually being watched or not, or contrariwise assume that they are always being watched.
You could assume that the Internet is therefore simply an extension of society in this instance (McLuhan, 1969). In which case, differences cannot actually be seen as being apparent, just recycled ideas are being put into practice in a different medium. The actual difference being that the Internet is considered as a larger platform. Goods and services have always been exploited, and some goods have always been counterfeited. The Internet may not provide more of an opportunity for this to happen, but it may provide more of an opportunity for exposure, as it is a platform without geographical constraints for those with a connection.
All of this combines into an argument by which society has actually been disciplined into acting a certain way, and this will simply transfer into the online environment. The differences are only viewed as being apparent because there may be a greater opportunity for the aforementioned exposure.
References:
Althusser, L (1984) Cited in McGrath, J (2004) Loving big brother – Performance, Privacy and surveillance space. Oxford, Routledge.
Foucault, M (1977) Discipline and Punish. London, Penguin Books.
McLuhan, M (1969) The Medium is the Massage. London, Penguin Books.
You made it sound more worrying and scarier than I did XD
The Internet as a surveillance tool does show heavy influence from already existing methods. Heck the state was using surveillance methods on its citizens long before then World Wide Web.
I think it may me more affective on the Internet because there are much more tools on hand for those in power to watch what people do online and off. I just hope they don't take it further than they already have.
A “Great Transition” probably implies some sort of radical change in the model politics. However, this may not be the case. Modern politics,driven or supplemented by emergent internet platforms, is not fundamentally different from traditional politics. The platforms and modes of expression and articulation might have changed with or adapted to advances in technology, especially the proliferation of information and communication technologies; but the nature and make-up of the primary players - the human beings or civil society, has stayed the same.
The Internet and related communication technology platforms may have led to the creation of new virtual civil states and frontiers that do not necessarily subscribe to traditional political boundaries, but the pursuit of traditional concerns and dilemmas such as fundamental liberties and justice for all, among others still continue to inform modern politics regardless of the practice platform or frontier. An inherent cultural diversity which evolves naturally and continually also continues to inform the diversity of perspectives in modern politics and as such undoubtedly demonstrates how modern politics is fundamentally the same as traditional politics.
It is also reasonable to acknowledge that internet is still an emerging platform for politics not necessarily for any other butsimply because there is only a small percentage of the traditional political population that has reliable access to the internet necessary in order to radically shift or change the model of traditional politics.
Writings on issues surrounding internet have become interesting among scholars in recent times. It seems that the internet is becoming democratized looking at its metamorphosis from the perspectives of being used for social interaction to the status of becoming central within political and economic spheres in the society; as well as how it is used on different platforms. Equally, the essay tries to look at issues like the transformation of the internet from one stage to another. The internet has really not settled because it is dynamic and it witnesses transformation all the time. Politics on the internet is taking a dramatic turn not only because people have realised the economic gains involved but due to what Garnham (2000:165) describes as central relationship between communication media and democracy. This title “politics on the Internet” can be put in other words as “democratization of the internet.” This is because of the fact that several questions abound on the centrality of media of communication both in private and public debate; the Internet as a new medium that comes with different opportunities ignites the quest for debate within communities and in wider political sphere, (Garnham 2000:165).
The decentralized nature of the internet makes politics on the internet very interesting as well as also complex. The internet revolution as envisaged by a Canadian sociologist and media theorist, McLuhan (1965:5 cited in Berger 2005:131) remains a special explosion that dramatically shapes both social and political responsibilities and also allows engagement on different debates about the internet opportunities and implications. In essence, politics of the internet covers areas such as the transitional nature of the Net, the existing cyberpolitics, and the highly debated area of the Net that is, issues of control and regulations. Other areas found interesting in the essay are the potentials of the Net in a virtual world of technology and formation of activism on the Net.
References:
Berger, A. A., (2005). Making sense of Media; Key Texts in Media and Cultural Studies. UK. Blackwell Publishing.
Garnham, M. (2000). Emancipation, the media, and modernity: arguments about the media and social theory. Oxford. Oxford University Press.