The weeks lecture by Stephen Stockwell was about 'Political Possibilities'.
We learned more about CyberPolitics and eDemocracy and it was a really interesting and informative lecture.
We started with the definition of Democracy and some other terms like CyberPolitics or eDemocracy. Then we moved on and had a look at new political formations arising from new technologies, for example the work of hackers and cyberpunks.
CyberPolitics:
- politics of the internet
- there are a lot powerplays around the actual structure and functions of the internet (decided by the Internet Society and ICANN and even by political activities in forums, between bloggers and in games.
eDemocracy:
- intervention in real world politics
- it covers political campaigns and the government's use of the internet
- people can discuss political debates and critizise the government and their mistakes
After that we moved on to a general view of democracy. We learned more about it's history and we spoke about some simple definitions of democracy continue to inform popular discussion:
-the rule of the many
-the rule of the majority
-government of the people, by the people, for the people
The Democracy as we know it today is mainly the product of the nations of the industrial age. But the things we talked about in the lecture don't adress the impact of the present period of rapid transition from an industrial to an information economy and the consequent challenge to the power of nation states by global economic and cultural processes.
Then we had a closer look at the universal acceptance of democracy and the ambivalence of political process. Around eighty percent of Australian and American adults say, that they are interested in politics, but actually no more than half of the adult population follow public affairs in the mass media and only as few as five percent vote in elections.
The most obvious alternative to representative democracy is participatory or direct democracy, based on the ancient Greek model where all citizens have a right and a duty to be involved in all decisions made. Democracy, they argue, can only work where citizens understand that they have a duty to foster democratic processes as a common undertaking and, most particularly, a duty to participate in those processes. Participation is seen to educate and empower the participant and this is crucial to the health and strength of democracy.
So the search for a definition of democracy can never be concluded.
Chantal Mouffe argues in her preface to Dimensions of Radical Democracy that:
-democracy can only consist in the recognition of the multiplicity of social logics and the necessity of their articulation... [with] no hope of final reconciliation. That is why radical democracy also means the radical impossibility of a fully achieved democracy.
Our next topic was: Gaps in the Mass Media
The increasing concentration, centralisation and commercialisation of the mass media appear to have foreclosed avenues for democratic participation in currently existing representative democracy. To have a closer look at this we talked about Habermas ideas and his thoughts of the public sphere.
Basically you can say that if the mass media are the main forums for democratic deliberation then citizens must have the potential to make their voice heard or it is not a democracy. We learned,that there are potentials for demotic use of the mass media through the gaps provided by their commercial, competitive nature, by building public spheres for autonomous deliberation and by appreciating the hermeneutic capabilities of the citizen-audience.
Then we talked about 'Free Speech and Censorship'
-> 'The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it' (John Gilmore)
Deliberation and discussion are key attributes of democracy, maybe talk is the most important element of democratic activity. The ability to convince and the willingness to be convinced are what provide the give and take that makes democracy something for all citizens. And that requires access to free speech!!!
But in Australia there is no constitutional right to free speech, like we have it in the USA and the most European countries. So we have to ask: Is free speech a basic right?
Rather we might view free speech as self-correcting mechanism - in using free speech people make democracy happen.
But there are a lot battles between free speech and censorship on the net. On the one hand it's the case, that the net is like a newspaper, but it isn't mass media in the accepted sense. And you also have the problem of copyright.
Later Stephen went on to 'Citizen-Hacker: Doing Global Democracy'
One space for the recreation of the citizen has been cleared by the hacker. They move freely through machines and their networks to find obscure and hidden information. Hackers regard computer systems not as corporate property but as part the common wealth and do not believe it is wrong to break into systems to look around and understand.
The Hacker's Manifesto from 1986 explained the hacker ethos: 'This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons? We explore... We seek after knowledge?' (Blankenship 1986).
Today Hackers have a bad name. They are always named together with computer criminal, but in the Hacker's Handbook of Hugo Cornwell he notes two other uses: 'those involved in the recreational and educational sport of unauthorised entry into computers and, more generally, the enthusiasts 'who love working with the beasties for their own sake, as opposed to operating them in order to enrich a company?'
And there is also 'The Hacker Ethic'. This code says, that the data the hackers found are for free sharing and that they never harm information they found.
As the final word Stephen chose Hugo Cornwall's quote:Computers 'can threaten our traditional concepts of freedom, individuality and human worth. I like to believe hacking is a curious re-assertion of some of those ideas.'
After that we came to the topic 'Cyberpunk':
It is an outlet for political expression with regards to the internet and studies the political possibilities.
The word 'Cyberpunk' comes from the amalgamation of Cybernetics (the study of communication, command and control in living organisms, machines and organisations) and Punk (a style of fast, loud, short rock music with an anarchist political philosophy and a DIY, anti-expert, 'seize the day' approach to life).
Cyberpunk developed as a reaction against the over-blown stories of for example George Lucas's Star Wars.
The movie Matrix pushed the limits of cyberpunk so it became like the bloated soap operas that it had originally scorned. Nevertheless it deals with philosophical issues at some depth. It also explored a possible future world where machines are smarter than humans and where people are dominated by machines and media.
Cyberpunk Themes:
1. Technology and Mythology:
- connected for a long time
- in greek mythology ('Prometheus')
- 'Sisyphus' (used technology against the wishes of the gods -> see Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus')
- 'Adam and Eve'
- 'Faust' (a doctor, who sold his soul to the devil for unlimited power and knowledge, but was very unhappy with it, cause he couldn't find a way out of the deal)
- 'Frankenstein' (Dr Frankenstein tried to reanimate the reconstituted dead, but he created a monster which went out of control)
-> Cyberpunk was used to remythologise technology
2. Utopia and Dystopia:
- there are strong myths for and against technology -> Utopias (imaginary places, people, world, everything is perfect and humans and technology are in harmony)
3. Cities as Machines
- the city is a machine for living- it creates human life just as humans create it
- the city is a natural thing, created by natural beings (humans)just as bee-hives and ant nests are created by natural beings
- the city is a living being- a cyborg which combines human issue with synthetic infrastructure
4. Technological change
The First Media Age(centralised dissemination) vs. the Second Media Age(decentralised interaction)
-> First Media Age:
- early forms of electronic were quite similar
- but the telephone was a great invention
- characterized by the use of one source, but many receivers
-> Second Media Age:
- invention of the Internet
- characterized by distributed systems of interaction
Finally you can say, that the right understanding for technology is really important.
The new media brings with it a need for new understandings- particularly political ones- to protect the public interest.
New Technologies are always a chance, but you have to think really carefully about their need, the problems they can bring and how it can effect our live and the community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment