What sparked my interest most out of today’s class was the idea of media literacy as a potential part of pre-collegiate education. Our class and our O’Neill reading, Media Literacy and Communication Rights: Ethical Individualism in the New Media Environment, both mentioned how the United States is the world’s largest producer of media, one of the largest consumers of media, and yet we have nothing worked into our public education system to teach our citizens to be media literate. This is not just an education issue, but a human rights issue. The EU, unlike the US, has raised media literacy as a public policy concern and has required that children and educators are informed in making personal critical evaluations of media content. This is intended to ultimately better prepare children to be active citizens and to simultaneously protect them against the growing dangers the digital environment harbors.
O’Neill sets up this debate by emphasizing that both the US and EU promote the idea of ethical individualism, meaning that individuals are increasingly given responsibility to make their own decisions on responsible behavior, opinions from media, and choices regarding what interactions they choose to have in the digital world. He expands to say that with new media becoming increasingly prevalent, these responsibilities become an increasingly important human rights issue. With less support and guidance, people are being left to determine their own acceptable standards. This is great in theory and is part of the foundations of our democracy, but it greatly endangers children. Both adults and children have communication rights, but, according to O’Neill, it is society’s responsibility to provide education to protect their best interests and to support them in this undertaking.
I would definitely agree with O’Neill and with the EU that children need this support. I think that media literacy is something that we should be concerned about both from a sociological and from a public policy standpoint. Over the past generations media and technology have exponentially grown and infiltrated our personal lives inside our homes. There is no escape from advertisements, a barrage of opinions, and greater threats on the internet and on social networking sights. While our class has been educated to critically approach all of these messages and opportunities, we have done so more gradually than the children of today’s age. Our generation brought about the creation and popularity of computer games, emails, and (dare I bring us back to the ever-popular) Facebook. We had time to establish social norms, to see the dangers slowly emerge, and to adjust our media literacy throughout our lives. Children in today’s age do not have such a luxury. They are brought into the digital world with no prior experience, a need for greater guidance, and facing greater threats.
I would argue that media literacy education is something that the US should seriously consider, if not for the sake of children's safety or for their basic human rights, but for the future of our society.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Thoughts on Sparks and Globalization
**First off, apologies everyone for the late post, had a bit of a migraine last night that kept me off the computer**
Globalization was something I was first introduced to as a formal concept in my first international affairs class years and years ago. Obviously it was a phenomenon I'd been familiar with - I think it's impossible to grow up in the United States these days without acknowledging the corporations, NGOs, and supranational organizations that have major cross-border influences.
In my past blog posts I've focused generally on the trends about which we've been reading or discussing in class, but this week I want to focus on Colin Sparks's article. Sparks approaches globalization from a perspective that neither champions globalization nor is 100% cynical about it. Sparks harshly critiques globalization as it's studied - throwing all existing paradigms out the window, noting that the intricacies of a massive issue cannot be narrowly categorized. He thinks that the US isn't the current hegemonic power, and that it is just a node amongst other actors in the world as far as media production, though it still reaps most of the profits. While it is true that local media is on the rise, particularly in the area of television, the US has the largest film industry which does have heavy global influence in terms of pop culture.
Controversial as some of his statements may be, I fully agree with Sparks when he says the the report of the nation-state's death has been greatly exaggerated. If anything, I think globalization has the potential to enhance the experience as being part of a nation - it can make someone feel more connected to their group, and make those experiences even more special and important to preserve and promote. Media globalization makes it even easier for nations to spread their culture and ties to diasporas, and unite nations in ways previously unheard of.
Globalization is good until it's not. A universal consensus on when "enough is enough" is unlikely, and different scholars, different leaders, and different average civilians have their own opinions on whether or not they feel an increasingly globalized world is beneficial or not. To the person who lost his manufacturing job due to outsourcing, globalization has more likely than not served a damaging role in his life. To the children living in an impoverished village, the arrival of an NGO that's established itself as an educational organization can completely change their futures in a positive way. I can't say whether globalization is good or bad, to me it's an entirely subjective matter.
Globalization was something I was first introduced to as a formal concept in my first international affairs class years and years ago. Obviously it was a phenomenon I'd been familiar with - I think it's impossible to grow up in the United States these days without acknowledging the corporations, NGOs, and supranational organizations that have major cross-border influences.
In my past blog posts I've focused generally on the trends about which we've been reading or discussing in class, but this week I want to focus on Colin Sparks's article. Sparks approaches globalization from a perspective that neither champions globalization nor is 100% cynical about it. Sparks harshly critiques globalization as it's studied - throwing all existing paradigms out the window, noting that the intricacies of a massive issue cannot be narrowly categorized. He thinks that the US isn't the current hegemonic power, and that it is just a node amongst other actors in the world as far as media production, though it still reaps most of the profits. While it is true that local media is on the rise, particularly in the area of television, the US has the largest film industry which does have heavy global influence in terms of pop culture.
Controversial as some of his statements may be, I fully agree with Sparks when he says the the report of the nation-state's death has been greatly exaggerated. If anything, I think globalization has the potential to enhance the experience as being part of a nation - it can make someone feel more connected to their group, and make those experiences even more special and important to preserve and promote. Media globalization makes it even easier for nations to spread their culture and ties to diasporas, and unite nations in ways previously unheard of.
Globalization is good until it's not. A universal consensus on when "enough is enough" is unlikely, and different scholars, different leaders, and different average civilians have their own opinions on whether or not they feel an increasingly globalized world is beneficial or not. To the person who lost his manufacturing job due to outsourcing, globalization has more likely than not served a damaging role in his life. To the children living in an impoverished village, the arrival of an NGO that's established itself as an educational organization can completely change their futures in a positive way. I can't say whether globalization is good or bad, to me it's an entirely subjective matter.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Globalization, Good or Bad, Black or White
What struck me the most in this weeks reading was the article by Colin Sparks ”What’s wrong with globalization.” Therefore I would take the opportunity to show where I think Sparks is failing in his arguments and show my view of the globalization concept.
In the article, Sparks criticizes five of the main elements that usually are seen as consensus among different globalization scholars.
The overall problem I think this article is facing is that Sparks is trying to look at globalization from a rather narrow prospective, he is not considering the change of the world structure and the role of all international actors. Throughout the article he is arguing that the only driving factor is the American imperialism over the rest of the world. According to Sparks globalization is not a new phenomena, instead he choose to call it ‘capitalist development.’
Even though he recognize the different aspects of globalization he is constantly coming back to the economic impact that the US has, if it is over the media, the global institutions like the IMF, World Bank or the WTO, he is also arguing that culture is being commercialized.
In some aspects he is raising some interesting and points, although at times it feels like Sparks is comparing apples to oranges. He is talking about the frame of the globalization but he is forgetting to look at the actual process, what is really happening within these different sectors that we are analyzing. Not to forget is that most globalization scholars are sociologists and anthropologists. Therefore it is even more crucial to look at the impact of the individual while studying the process of globalization.
I view globalization as a process that not necessarily a straightforward process, it can take many turns since globalization is build-up by and contains many different sectors, for example, economy, politics, culture, media, communication etc. This view would be in lines with Appadurai. That means that the process of globalization does not have affect us in the same way all over the world. Many critics argue that we are moving in the same direction and that the whole world is going to be dominated by the evil West/US.
I would say that due to globalization we have the opportunity to pick and choose and many times the local and national get a more significant role. Many times called ‘glocalization,’ it could either be something local being lifted to a global level or something global being adopted by the local. That brings us to another point regarding ‘contra-flow’ that Castell is mentioning, which means that it is not just the US that pick and choose and make it their own (if it is a TV show, movie, product, newspaper, etc). Instead the influence in coming from all over, from many different directions and angles which make the end product something that could be globally looked upon instead of ‘Americanized’.
At the same time as I do agree with Appadurai and his argument of the importance of the culture and the process flow but I have to combine this concept with what Ronald Robertson says, ‘that globalization makes us aware of ourselves as being a part of the world.’ To take it a step further is to connect it to the concept of cosmopolitanism. With the notion of us being a part of the world we could also work for and change the world as a whole. As stated in previous posts I would say that being a global citizen is to take it too far, although since the individual has got a more powerful role within the international system today, we are able to embrace our subcultures and form new structures that are not state-bound. I would like to argue that in the lines of cosmopolitanism I think that human rights and environmental rights have got itself a new forum on the international arena and this might be an embryo of cosmopolitanism.
In the article, Sparks criticizes five of the main elements that usually are seen as consensus among different globalization scholars.
The overall problem I think this article is facing is that Sparks is trying to look at globalization from a rather narrow prospective, he is not considering the change of the world structure and the role of all international actors. Throughout the article he is arguing that the only driving factor is the American imperialism over the rest of the world. According to Sparks globalization is not a new phenomena, instead he choose to call it ‘capitalist development.’
Even though he recognize the different aspects of globalization he is constantly coming back to the economic impact that the US has, if it is over the media, the global institutions like the IMF, World Bank or the WTO, he is also arguing that culture is being commercialized.
In some aspects he is raising some interesting and points, although at times it feels like Sparks is comparing apples to oranges. He is talking about the frame of the globalization but he is forgetting to look at the actual process, what is really happening within these different sectors that we are analyzing. Not to forget is that most globalization scholars are sociologists and anthropologists. Therefore it is even more crucial to look at the impact of the individual while studying the process of globalization.
I view globalization as a process that not necessarily a straightforward process, it can take many turns since globalization is build-up by and contains many different sectors, for example, economy, politics, culture, media, communication etc. This view would be in lines with Appadurai. That means that the process of globalization does not have affect us in the same way all over the world. Many critics argue that we are moving in the same direction and that the whole world is going to be dominated by the evil West/US.
I would say that due to globalization we have the opportunity to pick and choose and many times the local and national get a more significant role. Many times called ‘glocalization,’ it could either be something local being lifted to a global level or something global being adopted by the local. That brings us to another point regarding ‘contra-flow’ that Castell is mentioning, which means that it is not just the US that pick and choose and make it their own (if it is a TV show, movie, product, newspaper, etc). Instead the influence in coming from all over, from many different directions and angles which make the end product something that could be globally looked upon instead of ‘Americanized’.
At the same time as I do agree with Appadurai and his argument of the importance of the culture and the process flow but I have to combine this concept with what Ronald Robertson says, ‘that globalization makes us aware of ourselves as being a part of the world.’ To take it a step further is to connect it to the concept of cosmopolitanism. With the notion of us being a part of the world we could also work for and change the world as a whole. As stated in previous posts I would say that being a global citizen is to take it too far, although since the individual has got a more powerful role within the international system today, we are able to embrace our subcultures and form new structures that are not state-bound. I would like to argue that in the lines of cosmopolitanism I think that human rights and environmental rights have got itself a new forum on the international arena and this might be an embryo of cosmopolitanism.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Globalization and its Implications on Cultural Awareness
In class today we began discussing the implications for globalization on our future careers, particularly for those who seek a career with the Foreign Service or who seek to influence local populations by global means. What I took out of the discussion was the need to be aware of the way that globalization has changed international interactions, its complexity, and how it applies to global diversity. Globalization has created new challenges.
As I have previously expressed in my posts, I don’t see the nation state as dissolving. I don’t see globalization as a force that will completely unravel the nation-filled world that we live in today. I do however, see the world as shifting. There are new players such as international and national corporations, NGOs, and the individual, among others, that now have an increasingly larger influence and say in governance.
Sinclair, in his article Globalization, Supranational Institutions, and Media, explains this phenomenon in terms of levels of cultural identity. This is something that aligns itself smoothly with my own personal beliefs since I tend to view the world from a more cultural perspective (versus an economic or political one, as other globalization scholars do). He explains how the individuals and the world face different levels of cultural identity. These include a local level, a micro-regional level, a regional level, a macro-regional level, and an international level. Globalization, in his mind, simply adds a new greater level/ lens through which we view and interact with the world. I think that this is very important because this idea doesn’t approach globalization as an occurrence that will overwrite the world as we know it, but simply as an addition that will add a new level of complexity and understanding.
I think that, taking this idea, it is easier to approach the question posed in class about the implications for globalization on our future careers. Personally, I think that globalization, in adding a new level of understanding, provides us with a greater knowledge of existing differences amongst cultures. It gives us an understanding that there is in fact another approach to life, (something that someone living in a remote village with no access to the outside would may not even consider), and then gives us the abilities to go and find out what those distinctions are and furthermore the ability to apply them. There are of course cultural and personal differences we find in our daily lives on the smaller local and regional scales, and the international level of cultural identity introduces us to more nations and groups, but globalization, in my opinion, takes all of these ideas and overlaps them in various ways. With globalization we see what happens when, for instance, an American movie is created to appeal to global audiences and is played in the East. We see how this compares to the Eastern country’s preference versus their own country-made movies.
I really believe that globalization, as controversial as it might be, has allowed people to form a more open mind and an innate better understanding of the world’s diversity. People don’t really have a choice to ignore it if they want to be successful on a global scale. I think if anything, it creates more potential for international interactions, campaigns, and progress.
As I have previously expressed in my posts, I don’t see the nation state as dissolving. I don’t see globalization as a force that will completely unravel the nation-filled world that we live in today. I do however, see the world as shifting. There are new players such as international and national corporations, NGOs, and the individual, among others, that now have an increasingly larger influence and say in governance.
Sinclair, in his article Globalization, Supranational Institutions, and Media, explains this phenomenon in terms of levels of cultural identity. This is something that aligns itself smoothly with my own personal beliefs since I tend to view the world from a more cultural perspective (versus an economic or political one, as other globalization scholars do). He explains how the individuals and the world face different levels of cultural identity. These include a local level, a micro-regional level, a regional level, a macro-regional level, and an international level. Globalization, in his mind, simply adds a new greater level/ lens through which we view and interact with the world. I think that this is very important because this idea doesn’t approach globalization as an occurrence that will overwrite the world as we know it, but simply as an addition that will add a new level of complexity and understanding.
I think that, taking this idea, it is easier to approach the question posed in class about the implications for globalization on our future careers. Personally, I think that globalization, in adding a new level of understanding, provides us with a greater knowledge of existing differences amongst cultures. It gives us an understanding that there is in fact another approach to life, (something that someone living in a remote village with no access to the outside would may not even consider), and then gives us the abilities to go and find out what those distinctions are and furthermore the ability to apply them. There are of course cultural and personal differences we find in our daily lives on the smaller local and regional scales, and the international level of cultural identity introduces us to more nations and groups, but globalization, in my opinion, takes all of these ideas and overlaps them in various ways. With globalization we see what happens when, for instance, an American movie is created to appeal to global audiences and is played in the East. We see how this compares to the Eastern country’s preference versus their own country-made movies.
I really believe that globalization, as controversial as it might be, has allowed people to form a more open mind and an innate better understanding of the world’s diversity. People don’t really have a choice to ignore it if they want to be successful on a global scale. I think if anything, it creates more potential for international interactions, campaigns, and progress.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thoughts on Modern Nationalism
From an academic perspective I've always found nationalism fascinating, mostly because it's not been something I've been able to understand that well on a personal level - at least not nationalism in terms of "hyper-patriotism." Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities was the first academic reading I ever undertook, though being in high school at the time I missed the significance and meaning behind the "imagined" concept. A couple years ago I did a short study abroad session to some countries in central Europe, and the trip's focus was on late 19th and early 20th century nationalism in those states. The strength of nationalism's force from a psychological perspective - what it can make people do - is unbelievable. But I've never felt that sense of hyper-patriotism, and while I understand what it does, I still am learning how it can develop.
I really don't want to give the Tea Party credit as a "nation," but it is a group of people who share similar political interests and goals. That is what unites them, though they also tend to have language, socioeconomic background, and a religion in common. Nations aren't centralized organizations, and neither is the Tea Party. As a group the media has been critical in bringing together tea partiers, through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and larger outlets such as Fox News. The Tea Party movement has its spokespeople, i.e. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who use their television shows and writings to unite the Tea Party Nation, as other members of the group share their messages as well. Whether or not the Tea Party can actually be considered a nation (and I really don't want to give them that much credit), the way people have united under it and use the media to bring themselves together under this banner of an imaginary community of which they are members is a contemporary example of media influence on nation development.
As for cosmopolitanism, I think the concept is admirable. Yet I wonder if the very idea of "global ties" defeats the purpose of people having the common bonds that the nation (or nation-state) provides. I'm reminded of one of the reasons why people join sororities and fraternities in college - "to make a large community feel smaller." Cosmopolitanism seems to defeat the purpose of nationalism: people feel less connected to one another on a personal level when part of a larger group, even if they are more connected on a technical level. Waisbord references Calhoun when he mentions that cosmopolitanism lacks an "emotional grip." Nationalism is about connections that people feel, not just ones that exist. One can be part of a nation but not feel nationalism. Therefore, cosmopolitanism is not a strong alternative or heir to nationalism.
I like feeling a part of something, having something culturally in common with other people. But part of what makes being a member of a nation (in the interest of full disclosure: I consider myself part of what New Englanders call "Red Sox Nation") is not just the ability to be connected by technology: it's language or jargon, religion, culture, background, or location. Nationalism will never change - it will always exist in one form or another. It's an emotion turned theory that cannot be replaced, but can be studied further from multiple dimensions.
I really don't want to give the Tea Party credit as a "nation," but it is a group of people who share similar political interests and goals. That is what unites them, though they also tend to have language, socioeconomic background, and a religion in common. Nations aren't centralized organizations, and neither is the Tea Party. As a group the media has been critical in bringing together tea partiers, through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and larger outlets such as Fox News. The Tea Party movement has its spokespeople, i.e. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who use their television shows and writings to unite the Tea Party Nation, as other members of the group share their messages as well. Whether or not the Tea Party can actually be considered a nation (and I really don't want to give them that much credit), the way people have united under it and use the media to bring themselves together under this banner of an imaginary community of which they are members is a contemporary example of media influence on nation development.
As for cosmopolitanism, I think the concept is admirable. Yet I wonder if the very idea of "global ties" defeats the purpose of people having the common bonds that the nation (or nation-state) provides. I'm reminded of one of the reasons why people join sororities and fraternities in college - "to make a large community feel smaller." Cosmopolitanism seems to defeat the purpose of nationalism: people feel less connected to one another on a personal level when part of a larger group, even if they are more connected on a technical level. Waisbord references Calhoun when he mentions that cosmopolitanism lacks an "emotional grip." Nationalism is about connections that people feel, not just ones that exist. One can be part of a nation but not feel nationalism. Therefore, cosmopolitanism is not a strong alternative or heir to nationalism.
I like feeling a part of something, having something culturally in common with other people. But part of what makes being a member of a nation (in the interest of full disclosure: I consider myself part of what New Englanders call "Red Sox Nation") is not just the ability to be connected by technology: it's language or jargon, religion, culture, background, or location. Nationalism will never change - it will always exist in one form or another. It's an emotion turned theory that cannot be replaced, but can be studied further from multiple dimensions.
Friday, September 17, 2010
The Nation-State vs. Cosmopolitanism
This weeks reading has raised a lot of questions about the role of the nation-stat and the difference between a nation-state and the nation. I would like to argue that there is a distinctive difference between the two and at the same time they are very interconnected.
I view the nation-state as the framework of the nation or the spine of it, the nation-state has obligations to its citizens, to provide them their rights, at the same time the citizens within the states has obligations to the state, to follow the laws and so on. The nation-state is a geopolitical entity, in contrast to the nation. I would also like to mention that even today there are many nations around the world that are not nation-states.
So what could be classified as a nation; culture, religion, ethnicity, language, history!? As we move into a more unified world do we really need to classify a nation by all of these attributes?
Sometimes I wonder what happened to the time when I was little and played hide and seek with my friends, or the first time I went to a disco or the fact that I all of a sudden had my own apartment on the other side of the globe. Life is a process and so is everything else in the world. At one point in time we had to call our friends to schedule a meeting, today we can reach almost everyone either on their cell, by text, on twitter, facebook, you name it.
So where do I want to go with this, well, time is something that we really cannot control and even understand, I would say that it is the same with a process. As I have stated in previous posts I think that due to these tools of communication the world is changing. It is hard to predict the future since this process can take many turns, what we do know is that it is changing the way we communicate.
Due to this change within communication I think that the notion of the nation will change. In our everyday life we tend to identify with one/many groups or to a specific sub-culture. Today it is possible to find these groups or cultures beyond the nation-states borders. Of course this will have an affect on our view of the nation.
Does this mean that we are moving towards a cosmopolitan world, maybe, maybe not. I believe that due to this international exchange of information we have opened up to an international discussion about human rights and the rights of all people. Does that mean that all humans one day would become global citizens? It is a beautiful vision and dream of many, unfortunately that might just be it. But does it really have to be black or white; I would say that the shade of gray might be where we need to focus.
There are so many times that I have been wearing Sweden’s national colors, screamed and cried, both out of joy and sadness. Why? Because of a game of soccer. Does this mean that I am a hard-core patriot? Well I have chosen to live my life in the United States and I wish to spend the rest of my life here.
This might be something I will discuss further in some of my coming posts, for now I will just say. Try to look for the shades of grey in the everyday life…
I view the nation-state as the framework of the nation or the spine of it, the nation-state has obligations to its citizens, to provide them their rights, at the same time the citizens within the states has obligations to the state, to follow the laws and so on. The nation-state is a geopolitical entity, in contrast to the nation. I would also like to mention that even today there are many nations around the world that are not nation-states.
So what could be classified as a nation; culture, religion, ethnicity, language, history!? As we move into a more unified world do we really need to classify a nation by all of these attributes?
Sometimes I wonder what happened to the time when I was little and played hide and seek with my friends, or the first time I went to a disco or the fact that I all of a sudden had my own apartment on the other side of the globe. Life is a process and so is everything else in the world. At one point in time we had to call our friends to schedule a meeting, today we can reach almost everyone either on their cell, by text, on twitter, facebook, you name it.
So where do I want to go with this, well, time is something that we really cannot control and even understand, I would say that it is the same with a process. As I have stated in previous posts I think that due to these tools of communication the world is changing. It is hard to predict the future since this process can take many turns, what we do know is that it is changing the way we communicate.
Due to this change within communication I think that the notion of the nation will change. In our everyday life we tend to identify with one/many groups or to a specific sub-culture. Today it is possible to find these groups or cultures beyond the nation-states borders. Of course this will have an affect on our view of the nation.
Does this mean that we are moving towards a cosmopolitan world, maybe, maybe not. I believe that due to this international exchange of information we have opened up to an international discussion about human rights and the rights of all people. Does that mean that all humans one day would become global citizens? It is a beautiful vision and dream of many, unfortunately that might just be it. But does it really have to be black or white; I would say that the shade of gray might be where we need to focus.
There are so many times that I have been wearing Sweden’s national colors, screamed and cried, both out of joy and sadness. Why? Because of a game of soccer. Does this mean that I am a hard-core patriot? Well I have chosen to live my life in the United States and I wish to spend the rest of my life here.
This might be something I will discuss further in some of my coming posts, for now I will just say. Try to look for the shades of grey in the everyday life…
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Future of Nation States
Questions concerning the future of the nation state and of nationalism filled our readings this week. I personally disagree with those who say that the nation state will dissolve, and certainly disagree with the idea that populations will form under a large global government or into a cosmopolitan reality. I would also disagree with those who hold opposite opinions that the nation state will continue to exist as is, even in the face of globalization and media expansion. I think that, instead, we must look for a middle ground that views the nation state as a shifting being that is adapting in the new age to hold its control.
As Castells explains in his article on the new public sphere, the nation-state is undergoing a series of crises. These include, as he defines them, a Crisis of Efficiency, Crisis of Legitimacy, Crisis of Identity, and Crisis of Equity. Waisbord explains in his article “Media and the Reinvention of the Nation”, that the nation has been challenged “from outside” through globalization and “from inside” by multiculturalism. Media and globalization have allows for public actors and civil society to increasingly gain a larger voice and ability to push for political and social change. Similarly cultures have been able to thrive and gain international strength and unity, especially, as Karim explains in his article on international communication and diasporas, in the cases of diasporas and formation of “imaginary nations.” Control is a powerful desire, however, and the nation-states have needed to and will continue to use media to their advantage and adapt in order to maintain their influence and authority.
The solution for nations, according to Castells, has been to become a network-state. In the same way that civil society has networked across the globe to create a new global public sphere, nation-states have also had to create network-state organizations that link multiple countries and international institutions that address cross-national and global issues. Karim explains how some nations, such as India and Israel, have worked with their diasporas through governmental positions as a result of their own national self-reassessments. While some nation-states, such as China, have banned media uses and tools in order to maintain their control and fight against current trends, other nation-states have embraced media and tried to work with new NGOs, grassroots organizations, diaspora populations and the like.
The common threads between Castell’s, Waisbord, and Karim’s arguments, in my opinion, are that nations are challenged as they are becoming more imagined, interconnected, and complex as a result of media’s influence. As Hayden said I don’t believe that society is ready for or interested in an international government, but I do believe that slowly civil society is gaining increasing control and that nation states must learn to incorporate civil society into their decision making to keep their overall legitimate existence. I think that more than anything, nation-states must increasingly look beyond borders as they redefine the concept of nationhood; as people become more globally interconnected, they are being exposed to increasingly more complex histories and cultural stories that appeal to their desire for belonging. People are assimilating and moving around the world completely differently than they were decades ago because of their ability to use media to determine their own senses of nationhood. Nations must take all of this into consideration as they too transform.
As Castells explains in his article on the new public sphere, the nation-state is undergoing a series of crises. These include, as he defines them, a Crisis of Efficiency, Crisis of Legitimacy, Crisis of Identity, and Crisis of Equity. Waisbord explains in his article “Media and the Reinvention of the Nation”, that the nation has been challenged “from outside” through globalization and “from inside” by multiculturalism. Media and globalization have allows for public actors and civil society to increasingly gain a larger voice and ability to push for political and social change. Similarly cultures have been able to thrive and gain international strength and unity, especially, as Karim explains in his article on international communication and diasporas, in the cases of diasporas and formation of “imaginary nations.” Control is a powerful desire, however, and the nation-states have needed to and will continue to use media to their advantage and adapt in order to maintain their influence and authority.
The solution for nations, according to Castells, has been to become a network-state. In the same way that civil society has networked across the globe to create a new global public sphere, nation-states have also had to create network-state organizations that link multiple countries and international institutions that address cross-national and global issues. Karim explains how some nations, such as India and Israel, have worked with their diasporas through governmental positions as a result of their own national self-reassessments. While some nation-states, such as China, have banned media uses and tools in order to maintain their control and fight against current trends, other nation-states have embraced media and tried to work with new NGOs, grassroots organizations, diaspora populations and the like.
The common threads between Castell’s, Waisbord, and Karim’s arguments, in my opinion, are that nations are challenged as they are becoming more imagined, interconnected, and complex as a result of media’s influence. As Hayden said I don’t believe that society is ready for or interested in an international government, but I do believe that slowly civil society is gaining increasing control and that nation states must learn to incorporate civil society into their decision making to keep their overall legitimate existence. I think that more than anything, nation-states must increasingly look beyond borders as they redefine the concept of nationhood; as people become more globally interconnected, they are being exposed to increasingly more complex histories and cultural stories that appeal to their desire for belonging. People are assimilating and moving around the world completely differently than they were decades ago because of their ability to use media to determine their own senses of nationhood. Nations must take all of this into consideration as they too transform.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Active consumption, passive participation?
All theories of international communications rely to some extent on the idea of an active or passive consumer.
Consumers of media aren't given enough credit by theorists, particularly the Frankfurt School. People can be products of their own environment, but in an age where there are more outlets for news and information - and more opportunities for individuals to shape the news themselves - the passive media consumer becomes more of an anomaly.
Bias always plays a role in media consumption, regardless of whether it is "left" or "right," or bias by the consumer or producer. An active consumer of media can opt to only watch Fox News, and only read papers run by Rupert Murdoch - but they still have their own bias in the balance of what information they choose to digest. That person is "active" in that they choose where to get their information, but their passivity is also indicated by a lack of variation in sources. To be fair, the same thing could be said of someone who exclusively gets their information from CNN.
Our society - for this purpose, I will define it as the developed world - has access to so much information, that choosing to participate is indicative of being an active consumer. The opportunities for editorializing, however, are a danger to critical thinking and passivity. Political commentators and pundits are constant features of 24 hour news networks, and often bring in a large segment of an audience. What I wonder, though, is how willing those audiences are to criticize and question what they hear.
With so much information and so many forms of media available for consumption and participation, one would assume that the idea of a passive audience found in the dependency theory and the propaganda models of communications would be outdated. But with the ease of obtaining such information, and the variation of channels through which it comes, analyzing the news and other forms of media may not be a consumer's priority. Since there are outlets for different ideologies and world views, people can actively choose what to consume, but consume it passively.
The more choice there is, the less critical thinking consumers do. But having decisions on what media to follow indicates active consumers with the ability to be critical in their choices - the hope is that at some point, they will be just as critical in processing information.
Consumers of media aren't given enough credit by theorists, particularly the Frankfurt School. People can be products of their own environment, but in an age where there are more outlets for news and information - and more opportunities for individuals to shape the news themselves - the passive media consumer becomes more of an anomaly.
Bias always plays a role in media consumption, regardless of whether it is "left" or "right," or bias by the consumer or producer. An active consumer of media can opt to only watch Fox News, and only read papers run by Rupert Murdoch - but they still have their own bias in the balance of what information they choose to digest. That person is "active" in that they choose where to get their information, but their passivity is also indicated by a lack of variation in sources. To be fair, the same thing could be said of someone who exclusively gets their information from CNN.
Our society - for this purpose, I will define it as the developed world - has access to so much information, that choosing to participate is indicative of being an active consumer. The opportunities for editorializing, however, are a danger to critical thinking and passivity. Political commentators and pundits are constant features of 24 hour news networks, and often bring in a large segment of an audience. What I wonder, though, is how willing those audiences are to criticize and question what they hear.
With so much information and so many forms of media available for consumption and participation, one would assume that the idea of a passive audience found in the dependency theory and the propaganda models of communications would be outdated. But with the ease of obtaining such information, and the variation of channels through which it comes, analyzing the news and other forms of media may not be a consumer's priority. Since there are outlets for different ideologies and world views, people can actively choose what to consume, but consume it passively.
The more choice there is, the less critical thinking consumers do. But having decisions on what media to follow indicates active consumers with the ability to be critical in their choices - the hope is that at some point, they will be just as critical in processing information.
International Communication Theory -- Often Selling People Short
I definitely think that much of international communication theory sells short the human mind’s ability to make personal and active decisions. In his book, International Communication, Continuity and Change, Thussu devotes his second chapter, “Approaches to Theorizing International Communication,” to providing the historical framework for looking at communication theory (2006).
A common theme throughout Thussu’s chapter was the idea of humans as being “passive receivers” or “cultural dupes.” Even the earliest ideas in international communication theory assumed that people are easily persuaded. In the 20th century Walter Lippmann expressed his ideas on public opinion manipulation by governments (p.41). He saw communication, as Professor Hayden says, as a “magic bullet” for unquestioningly influencing opinion. Karl Marx also questioned the role of power and its ability to control the public.
Thussu continues to show how, around WWII, fears of Hitler’s ability to use propaganda and create the Holocaust fostered the negative view of communication and its power. The Cold War further reinforced to pessimists that communication could be used to create the enemy Soviet power. It was also used by the Soviets to influence new populations and nation states to change course and follow, as they thought blindly, behind their ideals.
Theories throughout these decades mirrored cynical thoughts. When culture and development studies began in the late 20th century, communication was still seen from a top-down and linear approach and influenced Modernization Theorists. This itself was not a negative view of communication and was merely a reaction to the pressures of the Cold War and desire by the West to aid developing countries. Western countries simply saw their ways as superior. The Dependency and Structural Imperialism theories, however, stated otherwise. They argued that because of this Westernization, peripheral developing countries were dependent on the core, more economically successful, countries in the West (p. 42-50). A theory for why this is sustained, Hegemony, further expressed that people tacitly give the power to control their lives to others (p.52-53). The Frankfurt School’s Critical Theorists also theoretically undermined peoples’ ability to make choices and gave that power instead to mass media (53-54).
I personally believe that theorists need to gain faith in the population’s ability to make decisions for themselves. There are numerous examples of how people are not simply "duped" by mass media without question. Two examples from our class and from the Thussu reading are that of Cultivation Research which shows how people will change their attitudes over time and not from one viewing of a program, and of the Two Step Flow Hypothesis which shows that people are influenced not directly from media but by their opinion leaders.
I think that people are most influenced by their choices that they make on their societal affiliations. People choose which paths and groups they want to relate to most, and it is this desire to fit into their paths’/groups’ common behaviors, opinions, and social norms that allows them to be affected by messages. It is an individual’s choice to decide values they hold closest and which opinion leaders they will take their lead from.
This is not to say that humans should be given too much credit such as in the cultural studies perspective of international communication discussed by Thussu which assumes that people are extremely active and frequent players in their interpretation of messages. It is unrealistic to assume that people will seek out and hold with them all knowledge on particular subjects. In an election, for example, people turn to their party leaders to guide them in what to think and to fill them in on their party’s interpretation of a subject. That person though, as previously stated, has chosen to follow that person. There is an active decision making process that previously took place, and they are therefore making their own decisions and are not “cultural dupes” as much of theoretical history concludes.
A common theme throughout Thussu’s chapter was the idea of humans as being “passive receivers” or “cultural dupes.” Even the earliest ideas in international communication theory assumed that people are easily persuaded. In the 20th century Walter Lippmann expressed his ideas on public opinion manipulation by governments (p.41). He saw communication, as Professor Hayden says, as a “magic bullet” for unquestioningly influencing opinion. Karl Marx also questioned the role of power and its ability to control the public.
Thussu continues to show how, around WWII, fears of Hitler’s ability to use propaganda and create the Holocaust fostered the negative view of communication and its power. The Cold War further reinforced to pessimists that communication could be used to create the enemy Soviet power. It was also used by the Soviets to influence new populations and nation states to change course and follow, as they thought blindly, behind their ideals.
Theories throughout these decades mirrored cynical thoughts. When culture and development studies began in the late 20th century, communication was still seen from a top-down and linear approach and influenced Modernization Theorists. This itself was not a negative view of communication and was merely a reaction to the pressures of the Cold War and desire by the West to aid developing countries. Western countries simply saw their ways as superior. The Dependency and Structural Imperialism theories, however, stated otherwise. They argued that because of this Westernization, peripheral developing countries were dependent on the core, more economically successful, countries in the West (p. 42-50). A theory for why this is sustained, Hegemony, further expressed that people tacitly give the power to control their lives to others (p.52-53). The Frankfurt School’s Critical Theorists also theoretically undermined peoples’ ability to make choices and gave that power instead to mass media (53-54).
I personally believe that theorists need to gain faith in the population’s ability to make decisions for themselves. There are numerous examples of how people are not simply "duped" by mass media without question. Two examples from our class and from the Thussu reading are that of Cultivation Research which shows how people will change their attitudes over time and not from one viewing of a program, and of the Two Step Flow Hypothesis which shows that people are influenced not directly from media but by their opinion leaders.
I think that people are most influenced by their choices that they make on their societal affiliations. People choose which paths and groups they want to relate to most, and it is this desire to fit into their paths’/groups’ common behaviors, opinions, and social norms that allows them to be affected by messages. It is an individual’s choice to decide values they hold closest and which opinion leaders they will take their lead from.
This is not to say that humans should be given too much credit such as in the cultural studies perspective of international communication discussed by Thussu which assumes that people are extremely active and frequent players in their interpretation of messages. It is unrealistic to assume that people will seek out and hold with them all knowledge on particular subjects. In an election, for example, people turn to their party leaders to guide them in what to think and to fill them in on their party’s interpretation of a subject. That person though, as previously stated, has chosen to follow that person. There is an active decision making process that previously took place, and they are therefore making their own decisions and are not “cultural dupes” as much of theoretical history concludes.
Are the tools of communication a threat for the survival of a culture!?
Communication theory just like the field of International Relations hosts a wide spectrum of different views and ideas of the world and how it is structured. I would argue that many of these theories are somewhat static and it is important to recognize that when doing an analysis within the ever-changing field of communication.
I have a hard time deciding on one theory or philosophy when it comes to communication, more so I tend to look at the relations between them and the lack of will to view new aspects within the field, something I find very important in this rapidly shifting world.
Modernization is one of those theories that I have a hard time to agree with, to expect that the rest of the world would just get on the same discourse as the West or more so an “Americanization” discourse seems impossible when culture play such an important role worldwide. [Thussu p.45] I would argue that it is more likely that other Western nations take after the American way of life than other less developed states with a strong cultural bond around the world. Also to state that the flow of communication would be from the Western world to the less developed would be a false statement. Today information comes from many different directions and from many different levels, state-state, individual-group, corporation-individual, group-state, institution-state etc.
Galtung also touches on the subject of the dependency, talking about the less developed world being dependent on the rich world. Focusing his theory on the centre and periphery where the “core” in the centre states communicates and connects with the “core” (which would be the rich and powerful within the periphery-states) in the periphery-states. By doing so the rich world/rich states would both control the periphery stated and make the “core” of their own state more powerful to its own periphery. [p.50 Thussu]. I would say that Galtung has some interesting points in his analysis and we could definitely see example of this existing in the world today. One example would be when Egypt signed the documents recognizing Israel as a sovereign state(with pressure from the US). The United States has since then supported Egypt financially without demanding too much of a report what the money has gone to. Still many Egyptians live under harsh conditions and are not at all benefiting from all of this so called US-aid . The “core” in both of these countries certainly benefit from this relations.
What I think is very interesting to look at is the public sphere. I would also like to state that the main thought and reason for its upbringing is on its way back. To have a spaces/sphere where people can discuss the common good and also use that to put pressure on the state. Even though there was a change when people stated to lobby for economic interest instead of just the common good I would like to say that its core meaning is coming back into the “global public sphere”. [Thussu p.55-56]
The public sphere together with Robertson’ philosophy (among others) of the cosmopolitan system of the world is something I could relate to. Our interconnectedness could be seen as a “global civil society”. [Thussu p.60-61]My critic on the other hand would be that this theory focuses too much of market and economy which takes away some of the light that I think should be put on the role of the civil society or the public sphere. Our possibility to be global citizens in a way that has not been possible before, we can connect, exchange and learn from each other all over the world due to these tools of communication, where the internet would be the most important one.
So what does this do to the world, are we back to the discussion about modernization and are these tools of communication making the world more homogeneous!?
I would argue that it is not, we use these tools differently because we have different cultural background and we integrate them into our society differently. For example, there in the US the social network Facebook might be integrated in our everyday life and it might even have changed the way that we act in our normal life because this visual world is so close and present. In other cultures Facebook might be used as a hobby, a way of staying in touch with friends, more like a tool of communication, like sending a letter. Although it’s a part of the life it’s not integrated in the everyday life as it is here.
Will this change over time, well it might, although I do not think it’s going to change into one global hegemonic culture. As we go on in life we will always find new interests, find people that have common dreams and goals and I view these communication tools as a way of making it easier to find these people around the world, I maybe even find some new interests in something I didn’t even know existed. Does this mean that I’ll lose my culture, I don’t think so.
I have a hard time deciding on one theory or philosophy when it comes to communication, more so I tend to look at the relations between them and the lack of will to view new aspects within the field, something I find very important in this rapidly shifting world.
Modernization is one of those theories that I have a hard time to agree with, to expect that the rest of the world would just get on the same discourse as the West or more so an “Americanization” discourse seems impossible when culture play such an important role worldwide. [Thussu p.45] I would argue that it is more likely that other Western nations take after the American way of life than other less developed states with a strong cultural bond around the world. Also to state that the flow of communication would be from the Western world to the less developed would be a false statement. Today information comes from many different directions and from many different levels, state-state, individual-group, corporation-individual, group-state, institution-state etc.
Galtung also touches on the subject of the dependency, talking about the less developed world being dependent on the rich world. Focusing his theory on the centre and periphery where the “core” in the centre states communicates and connects with the “core” (which would be the rich and powerful within the periphery-states) in the periphery-states. By doing so the rich world/rich states would both control the periphery stated and make the “core” of their own state more powerful to its own periphery. [p.50 Thussu]. I would say that Galtung has some interesting points in his analysis and we could definitely see example of this existing in the world today. One example would be when Egypt signed the documents recognizing Israel as a sovereign state(with pressure from the US). The United States has since then supported Egypt financially without demanding too much of a report what the money has gone to. Still many Egyptians live under harsh conditions and are not at all benefiting from all of this so called US-aid . The “core” in both of these countries certainly benefit from this relations.
What I think is very interesting to look at is the public sphere. I would also like to state that the main thought and reason for its upbringing is on its way back. To have a spaces/sphere where people can discuss the common good and also use that to put pressure on the state. Even though there was a change when people stated to lobby for economic interest instead of just the common good I would like to say that its core meaning is coming back into the “global public sphere”. [Thussu p.55-56]
The public sphere together with Robertson’ philosophy (among others) of the cosmopolitan system of the world is something I could relate to. Our interconnectedness could be seen as a “global civil society”. [Thussu p.60-61]My critic on the other hand would be that this theory focuses too much of market and economy which takes away some of the light that I think should be put on the role of the civil society or the public sphere. Our possibility to be global citizens in a way that has not been possible before, we can connect, exchange and learn from each other all over the world due to these tools of communication, where the internet would be the most important one.
So what does this do to the world, are we back to the discussion about modernization and are these tools of communication making the world more homogeneous!?
I would argue that it is not, we use these tools differently because we have different cultural background and we integrate them into our society differently. For example, there in the US the social network Facebook might be integrated in our everyday life and it might even have changed the way that we act in our normal life because this visual world is so close and present. In other cultures Facebook might be used as a hobby, a way of staying in touch with friends, more like a tool of communication, like sending a letter. Although it’s a part of the life it’s not integrated in the everyday life as it is here.
Will this change over time, well it might, although I do not think it’s going to change into one global hegemonic culture. As we go on in life we will always find new interests, find people that have common dreams and goals and I view these communication tools as a way of making it easier to find these people around the world, I maybe even find some new interests in something I didn’t even know existed. Does this mean that I’ll lose my culture, I don’t think so.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Communication and the Change of World Order
This weeks readings made me think of the connection between International Communication and the change of the world order on the International Arena.
If we go back in time and look at how the world was structured we had different empires/nation-states that were the main actor on the international arena. These states fostered its individuals, groups, government, corporations etc. We can specifically look at the time when many European countries started to colonize the world and the launch of the telegraph got a significant role, especially regarding power and control. One example that also was mentioned in Hanson’s reading was the importance to control these new colonized territories. That was done through mass-communication, the message was often to get these colonies to feel that they belonged to the nation-state that they had been colonized by. The telegraph also paved the way for the importance of news, which played an important role for the people stationed abroad. Since I would like to focus on the change of the world order from the early years when communication started to play an important role till today when I would state that communication is key in many sectors of the society, within nation-states and world.
As we could see nation-states used communication for power and control, and the nation-state could be seen as the main and only actor on the international arena at that time. If we look at the world today we have a number of actors on the international field, constantly competing for power, influence and economic gains. Although I would not say that the nation-state is the main actor today. Due to communication the power has shifted, when we started to give power to the corporations they quickly grew out of the nation-states boarders. Today these multi-national corporations could be viewed as one of our most powerful actors internationally. If we take a closer look we will find not only nation-states and corporations but also international institutions such as the United Nation and the World Bank, and then we have the Non-Governmental-Organizations. Another actor, which importance we should not forget is the single individual. The individual has now got power-relations with the other actors, the thoughts and demand from the individual play a crucial role today. The word Civil Society are seen more often and we, the people have now got the power to share and spread information to people within other nation-states. We are now able to put pressure not only of our own government but also other governments worldwide, demand for Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights for all. These are just a few things that individuals worldwide engage in every day. If it is a youtube video on the ongoing violence in Congo or a twittering post about being kept hostage at the Discovery Channel office. Whatever it is we are constantly affected by the information shared by individuals. Today information feeds us from all angles of the society and the world, from the single individual to the multi-national corporations.
Was it better before when communication were handled by one actor, can we really handle everything that gets thrown at us and make the right decision not only for ourselves but also the world as a whole?
I would end this post by saying: "Have no fixed beliefs, and find your own light." - Buddha
Thursday, September 2, 2010
On the Internet
During the mid-nineteenth century, the newly-invented telegraph facilitated the spread of information in an unprecedented manner. News arrived from around the world in an unprecedented manner, and the advent of wireless technologies, including radio, brought information directly into people's homes. However, individual participation was much more difficult compared to today due to government regulations and expense.
Communication technologies have gone through stages, with new inventions joining and occasionally outpacing the old. The telegraph slowly faded into obscurity as telephone technology spread around the world, though it was more slow to grow in popularity in Europe than the United States, and the transatlantic phone call did not become relatively common until the 1960s. With more and more satellites orbiting Earth, the entire globe has access to quick and quality information via television, radio, phone, and Internet. It is the latter form of communication which is the newest to the average private citizen, and whose presence is still growing in the developing world.
The Internet has spread information at a speed like no other form of communication, and the advent of "Web 2.0" user-generated content brings individuals closer to one another. The printing press was key in the creation of modern nation-states, the telegraph played a role in the rise of nationalism, and now I wonder if the Internet will bring about a new form of "nation." There are different online communities for every interest under the sun, but they all have the same purpose: unite people with common interests. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube may be leading web presences, but a niche market exists for groups of people with specific interests, such as sports teams, bands, and political affiliations. Nations have always existed without borders, but the influence of "virtual nations" has grown. Can they actually have influence over events? Social media is a powerful organizational tool, and unlike earlier technologies, mostly outside of governing regimes.
Whether or not such web-based nations can actually be cohesive enough to exist as an effective bloc to influence world events or major shifts in cultural or political movements remains to be seen. Iran's "Twitter Revolution" is oft-discussed as a failure, but there are so many other factors that were involved - namely, the country's authoritarian government. The bottom line is that I see the Internet - particularly Web 2.0 - as extremely powerful organizational tools, and the ability of instant participation is unique amongst the development of communications technologies throughout history. But what I am unsure of is whether or not that organization can be turned into action.
Progression of Communication Technologies -- A Continuous Cycle
What stood out to me the most from this week’s readings was how the progression of communication technologies has gone from a focus on military and government use to a widely spread use not just by governments and nations but by private industry, NGOs, and the public. Technological innovation progresses historically and presently have moved in the direction of better efficiency, quality, personalization, and globalization. The push and pull dynamic between the need for technological innovations on the part of governments and the demand for communication expansion by the public also caught my eye. There is always a drive to advance technological capabilities, and as each advancement occurs, there is an even stronger drive from users for more access, speed, consistency, and control from/of these tools.
In her book, The Information Revolution and World Politics (2008), Hanson discusses the evolution of technological advancements. Even in the 1500’s, when printing grew in popularity, the ability to mass produce messages and to share them with members of the population had a unifying effect. Citizens felt part of the community and for the first time felt that they had a voice. This led to the rise of not only the nation state, but also to the power of governments to influence large numbers of people, and to the power of people to access larger amounts of information (p. 16).
Over time, new innovations added various levels of complexity to international communication. In the 1800’s, the telegraph allowed for rapid, long distance transportation of messages whereas previously news had to travel by person. Society began to demand up to date information about the world, and news agencies and media were born. Thus began a long period of networking and the use of collective opinion to influence the actions of the government. Likewise, the government used this power to influence and control their countries, their colonies, and their economic success. The telephone, radio, and television also added new dimensions over the next century that gave increased power to both the people and the governments that they lived under. Each technology added to communication capabilities, while simultaneously adding complexity and new demands by and challenges for governments and for the world population.
What I find most interesting, is the common threads throughout history. It is no secret that history repeats itself. In studying the history of international communication and of communication technological advancement there is no exception. What I am curious about, is what will happen in the future? Where will the battle for control between the public and the government lead? Currently with the latest technologies of Twitter and Facebook, people are able to keep followers up to date on their lives to the minute – how could technology share more about its users? How could technology progress to allow its users to network even further? When does technology become invasive? Is there a line that needs to be drawn in terms of privacy and of control? Today we as a society have come a long way from the original papers that gave basic, fairly outdated news. What will future technological demands and uses be? I look forward to exploring these issues in future readings and discussions.
In her book, The Information Revolution and World Politics (2008), Hanson discusses the evolution of technological advancements. Even in the 1500’s, when printing grew in popularity, the ability to mass produce messages and to share them with members of the population had a unifying effect. Citizens felt part of the community and for the first time felt that they had a voice. This led to the rise of not only the nation state, but also to the power of governments to influence large numbers of people, and to the power of people to access larger amounts of information (p. 16).
Over time, new innovations added various levels of complexity to international communication. In the 1800’s, the telegraph allowed for rapid, long distance transportation of messages whereas previously news had to travel by person. Society began to demand up to date information about the world, and news agencies and media were born. Thus began a long period of networking and the use of collective opinion to influence the actions of the government. Likewise, the government used this power to influence and control their countries, their colonies, and their economic success. The telephone, radio, and television also added new dimensions over the next century that gave increased power to both the people and the governments that they lived under. Each technology added to communication capabilities, while simultaneously adding complexity and new demands by and challenges for governments and for the world population.
What I find most interesting, is the common threads throughout history. It is no secret that history repeats itself. In studying the history of international communication and of communication technological advancement there is no exception. What I am curious about, is what will happen in the future? Where will the battle for control between the public and the government lead? Currently with the latest technologies of Twitter and Facebook, people are able to keep followers up to date on their lives to the minute – how could technology share more about its users? How could technology progress to allow its users to network even further? When does technology become invasive? Is there a line that needs to be drawn in terms of privacy and of control? Today we as a society have come a long way from the original papers that gave basic, fairly outdated news. What will future technological demands and uses be? I look forward to exploring these issues in future readings and discussions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)