Law, Politics & Information Technologies: What Does it Mean for Social and Economic Progress?
It has been advanced that the relationship between law, politics and technology is inextricably intertwined. Moreover, it has been suggested that appreciating the complexity of this relationship is paramount to an accurate understanding of what lies ahead on the social, political and economic horizons. It has been further intimated that advancements in technology and the growth of the social network commonly referred to as the Internet will inevitably lead to a fundamental shift in the populace’s orientation to and involvement in the political process, with significant long-term economic and social consequences. The thrust of the argument, as I understand it, is that given the communal spirit of the Internet (as evidenced through the free software movement, peer-to-peer file sharing, etc.), coupled with access to information unparalleled in history, we are on the cusp of a transformation ultimately leading to a more democratic society – or at a minimum, we could be.
The argument seems first to presuppose, at least in part, that lack of strong community and access to information are significant factors in explaining the economic, political and social status for many in America. Fair enough. It is the second presupposition that gives me considerable pause. That is, the factors giving rise to the absence of strong community and information access (and effective information utilization) can be sufficiently altered or eviscerated, ostensibly somehow in relation to the technological advances we are experiencing. It is this tacit assumption that I want to flesh out and examine, as I am not persuaded that the ideals of democracy so envisioned can ever be fully manifested without this assumption proving true, especially for most marginalized of our society. To paraphrase Dr. King, if freedom is not achieved for some, then it is never really achieved for all.
In attempting to address this question, let me first advance what some might consider a controversial view: Politics is essentially about which groups get what, when they get what they get and through which means they get it. “We the people,” at least when contemplated as the source of power under our republican system to determine the answers to the “who, what, when and how” questions, is an illusory proposition - a political-legal fiction of sorts. More accurately, our country is one where the “will” of the people is but the cryptic desires of the economically and politically influential – those shrewd enough to delude the masses into thinking that their respective interests are aligned, through mechanisms of, but not limited to, media control and manipulation.
Against this backdrop, it might be clear that the problem is multifaceted – it encompasses social, economic, political, legal and technological dimensions to varying degrees. But what are the primary impediments to the worst-off in America more fully participating in what some might consider the newest quixotic egalitarian aspiration? Do the impediments encompass access to information, such that minimizing or closing the digital divide could lead to significant change in the inner cities of the nation? Do they include grass-roots organizing and other community-building activities, both for purposes of community building itself and effective information utilization, such that economic and political advancement could be realized? What of the role of law? Whether, and to what extent, the FCC decides to regulate VoIP, is it significant for the folks who are subjected to the exorbitant collect calling fees charged when accepting calls from imprisoned family and friends or those serving in Afghanistan, Iraq or Korea? The answer to all the questions of this nature, I suspect, is a resounding yes. This is so because resolution of these matters in a manner consistent with valuing the public interest over private interests would signify shifts in what people will generally expect and accept.
Yet, while changes across all the spheres just mentioned are very necessary, they are not sufficient. There’s more. In addition to those spheres just discussed, I submit there also exist formidable sociological and psychological impediments not often figured into the “Internet Society” calculus.
It must be understood that the vicissitudes of daily life for the commoner in those communities which are the concern of my inquiry not only preclude access and effective utilization of information and community organization and political action, but also undermine an important antecedent to such activity – a self-image, and by extension a community-image, conducive to valuing participation in a system that historically, indeed contemporarily, has promoted a sense of despondency difficult to imagine if not lived. This sense of despondency is the result of the confluence of many circumstances, including constant exposure to a concentration of pathologies (i.e., joblessness, poor public educational systems, public official venality, crime, etc.) and commercial exploitation (e.g., predatory lenders, opportunistic retailers, etc.). As such, any model seeking to expand the life opportunities for people living under the worst of conditions in America must include components that successfully combat the pervasive sociological and psychological mechanisms currently so entrenched.
Naturally, the question becomes how, if at all, can it be done. What role, if any, can the Internet play? Reluctantly, I must admit that I don’t believe much can be done in the short-term. As evidence of major social movements in our history suggests, the Moseses of the nascent Internet Society won’t see the Promised Land (think M.L. King, Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston as the Moseses of the civil rights school desegregation era). I am, however, optimistic that future generations can benefit greatly from a well-planned and executed technology-grounded strategy. Such a strategy requires our Joshuas and Calebs to be bold enough to confront the Philistines of media conglomerates, government and other private entities. It also requires mobilization of intellectual forces committed to freedom and equality, as expressed through support for such initiatives as the $100 laptop, municipality-sponsored wireless access, expansion of broadband capabilities into rural areas and most importantly, a public education system that both recognizes and advances the unlimited capacity of the Internet to educate youth, in the truest sense of the term.
The argument seems first to presuppose, at least in part, that lack of strong community and access to information are significant factors in explaining the economic, political and social status for many in America. Fair enough. It is the second presupposition that gives me considerable pause. That is, the factors giving rise to the absence of strong community and information access (and effective information utilization) can be sufficiently altered or eviscerated, ostensibly somehow in relation to the technological advances we are experiencing. It is this tacit assumption that I want to flesh out and examine, as I am not persuaded that the ideals of democracy so envisioned can ever be fully manifested without this assumption proving true, especially for most marginalized of our society. To paraphrase Dr. King, if freedom is not achieved for some, then it is never really achieved for all.
In attempting to address this question, let me first advance what some might consider a controversial view: Politics is essentially about which groups get what, when they get what they get and through which means they get it. “We the people,” at least when contemplated as the source of power under our republican system to determine the answers to the “who, what, when and how” questions, is an illusory proposition - a political-legal fiction of sorts. More accurately, our country is one where the “will” of the people is but the cryptic desires of the economically and politically influential – those shrewd enough to delude the masses into thinking that their respective interests are aligned, through mechanisms of, but not limited to, media control and manipulation.
Against this backdrop, it might be clear that the problem is multifaceted – it encompasses social, economic, political, legal and technological dimensions to varying degrees. But what are the primary impediments to the worst-off in America more fully participating in what some might consider the newest quixotic egalitarian aspiration? Do the impediments encompass access to information, such that minimizing or closing the digital divide could lead to significant change in the inner cities of the nation? Do they include grass-roots organizing and other community-building activities, both for purposes of community building itself and effective information utilization, such that economic and political advancement could be realized? What of the role of law? Whether, and to what extent, the FCC decides to regulate VoIP, is it significant for the folks who are subjected to the exorbitant collect calling fees charged when accepting calls from imprisoned family and friends or those serving in Afghanistan, Iraq or Korea? The answer to all the questions of this nature, I suspect, is a resounding yes. This is so because resolution of these matters in a manner consistent with valuing the public interest over private interests would signify shifts in what people will generally expect and accept.
Yet, while changes across all the spheres just mentioned are very necessary, they are not sufficient. There’s more. In addition to those spheres just discussed, I submit there also exist formidable sociological and psychological impediments not often figured into the “Internet Society” calculus.
It must be understood that the vicissitudes of daily life for the commoner in those communities which are the concern of my inquiry not only preclude access and effective utilization of information and community organization and political action, but also undermine an important antecedent to such activity – a self-image, and by extension a community-image, conducive to valuing participation in a system that historically, indeed contemporarily, has promoted a sense of despondency difficult to imagine if not lived. This sense of despondency is the result of the confluence of many circumstances, including constant exposure to a concentration of pathologies (i.e., joblessness, poor public educational systems, public official venality, crime, etc.) and commercial exploitation (e.g., predatory lenders, opportunistic retailers, etc.). As such, any model seeking to expand the life opportunities for people living under the worst of conditions in America must include components that successfully combat the pervasive sociological and psychological mechanisms currently so entrenched.
Naturally, the question becomes how, if at all, can it be done. What role, if any, can the Internet play? Reluctantly, I must admit that I don’t believe much can be done in the short-term. As evidence of major social movements in our history suggests, the Moseses of the nascent Internet Society won’t see the Promised Land (think M.L. King, Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston as the Moseses of the civil rights school desegregation era). I am, however, optimistic that future generations can benefit greatly from a well-planned and executed technology-grounded strategy. Such a strategy requires our Joshuas and Calebs to be bold enough to confront the Philistines of media conglomerates, government and other private entities. It also requires mobilization of intellectual forces committed to freedom and equality, as expressed through support for such initiatives as the $100 laptop, municipality-sponsored wireless access, expansion of broadband capabilities into rural areas and most importantly, a public education system that both recognizes and advances the unlimited capacity of the Internet to educate youth, in the truest sense of the term.
posted by Bryan A. Brooks at 8:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home