“Traditional societies form groups of relatively homogeneous individuals who often share common occupations, religion and social class” (* Simmel). These trends are being mirrored online with groups such as the “Electronic Village Halls” created in Manchester. There’s a “Women’s EVH, Disabled People’s EVH, and Bangladesh House EVH” (Liberty p.199), and many others to cater for a variety of groups of similar minded and situated peoples for support, help and advice. Many of the groups provide support for individuals in need that they would have no alternative means of reaching. The net offers a vehicle for joining others in a common purpose. From a health perspective for example, “the internet makes affiliations possible that can be absolute lifelines for those involved” (* Rheingold). From a mother searching for information on a particular illness inflicted upon her child to the sufferer of a terminal disease looking for support from fellow patients, the web can provide answers for all.
The internet also allows cross cutting and intersecting of a multitude of dramatically different individuals, allowing a whole new insight into the lives of others, from opposing ends of the globe and walks of society. Chat groups and new online communities are constantly being formed allowing people an incredible capacity to frolic in cyberspace, with virtual worlds such as MUDs (multi user dimension) – where users create a character for themselves within a virtual world of similarly minded people, living out a life of fantasy making and breaking new friendships and relationships, and even instigating marriages through new found acquaintances. But is computer dating a sad reflection of the demise of our social fabric?
Sadly with every advance in society, a corrupting new brand of evils arise in tow. The empowerment and ease of communication allows dissident and extremist groups to spring up and voice their opinions on society and life. Interest groups are not only dominated by the stamp collectors and music fans out there, but also attract the other end of the spectrum – with anti-Semitic, and neo-Nazi supporters spreading their gospel. The distinct difficulty is controlling and screening material on the web, allowing these groups to quietly collect and exchange information and support. “For the far-right, the internet is of considerable and far reaching significance” (Liberty p.242). Information on bomb making can be freely circulated via web-based mailboxes, and websites containing propaganda type recruitment for extremist hate groups are popping up all the time. “The precise, military style planning of German neo-Nazis and their strategies of remaining in small groups rather than amalgamating with one or two umbrella organisations, has been facilitated by the use of the internet” (Liberty p.244). Groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and White Supremists can openly display their opinions on the racial constitution of the world due to lack of regulation, laws and freedom of speech acts. Quickly gaining momentum where they are a voice far more easily accessed than ever before, the proliferation of propaganda material and conscription of young new recruits is rife in cyberspace.
Despite this rapid advance of opportunity, there are various factors limiting the success and true capabilities of online civic engagement. Most importantly is the “inequalities in access to the internet, or what has come to be known as the ‘Digital Divide’” (Eszter Hargittai *). While in 1981, there were less than 300 computers linked up to the internet, this number has exploded to a figure estimated to be in excess of 200 million (excluding PC’s for individual use) (International Data Corp *), yet it must be remembered that this only accounts for roughly 2% of the worlds population. So although there are dreams of transforming the conventional forms of democratic activism and levelling the playing fields for developing societies, the internet may only serve to reinforce the existing gap between the technologically rich and poor and strengthen the advantages of post industrialist economies.
Despite the existence of societies where the internet is a thriving culture, it has not yet taken a stranglehold, and made perfect links of communication between us as individuals and the many groups that affect us, or try to cater for our interests and persuasions. Even for those with access, most people lack the technical skill, ability, knowledge, interest and motivation to take full advantage of the web. There is no point presenting someone with a book, without first teaching them to read. Also, although thriving with younger generations who have grown up amongst this technology, there is a significant difference in ability when looking at several generations up. This distrust of technology limits the field of people able to use the medium effectively even further. The problem of theft of information is also a problem hindering users. Whilst only several years ago, most were sceptical of exchanging more than a username online, let alone a credit card number, now e-commerce is big business, and encryption methods are becoming more and more reliable, thereby reducing the threat of theft. Nonetheless, certain precautions about new forms of interaction are still in practise. There is not yet a comprehensive system been set up for the collection of votes in political elections. Information is not viewed as altogether as reliable or authentic as in real life due to high profile cases of hackers breaking into websites and causing havoc, creating an atmosphere of doubt around the media.
Is the internet going to be our main source of information, and provider of communication links with the rest of the world? Will we see the web as our virtual meeting point from which to discuss, argue and debate public matters concerning our life and welfare? Or are there simply too many limitations in technology and ignorance in its application and use to augment mass communication and true democracy in matters of civic engagement? I believe the internet, although already an incredible media in its own right, has a long way to go before its potential is fully reached. As time progresses, so will the dimensions of the virtual world expand. We are a lengthy distance from a time where the internet can replace the need for real-world institutions, and it must be asked: “Do we really want to run our lives from our desktop PC or laptop?” Despite the developments in virtual and teleconferencing, I don’t believe people will ever fully give up the want or need to interact face to face within a real-life community. But where will it stop? When will we be satisfied with the ever expanding age of technologicalisation? Already the lines are blurring between the real and virtual worlds, and it won’t be too long until there will be very little difference.
Bibliography
(* = downloaded online)
“Liberating Cyberspace – Civil Liberties, Human Rights and the Internet” edited by Liberty 1999. Pluto Press London and Sterling, Va, USA
“Virtual Culture – Identity and Communication in Cybersociety” edited by Steven G. Jones 1997. Sage Publications London
* “Second Level Digital Divide : Differences in People’s online skills” Eszter Hargittai – www.firstmonday.dk 22nd Nov 02
* Synopsis of “Digital Divide? Civic engagement, Information poverty and the Internet in Democratic Societies” Norris.P – HSG, Harvard University www.ksg.harvard.edu
* “Netting a new sense of connection” Paul Van Slambrouk – www.csmonitor.com 22nd Nov 02
* Simmel - www.sociologyonline.co.uk 22nd Nov 02
* Rheingold – www.rheinglod.com 22nd Nov 02
Word Count = 1579
