Impact of media on society: retribalization of modern world?

hmmm.....honey baked ham...hmmm
well, veterans ain't doing that well in terms of their organized participation either, i think... i should actually check the statistics. putnam will surely have something up.

0 Replies

Hmmm.. Putnam is behind the power curve on the whole Internet issue. I met him at a luncheon a little over a year ago and now catch up with him every 2 or 3 months.

The day I first met him I asked him about his opinion of forums (such as A2K) and how they fit into his dynamics of social organizations and at the time he hadn't even considered the possibilities. (In his defense he's still pouring through tons of organizational data from the last 300 years so he is a bit busy!)

0 Replies

I am having some trouble forcing myself to read mcluhan now, gnashing my teeth. I'm interested in retribalization and it's opposite, whatever that word is. Not sure I ascribe those patterns, which I think are always ongoing, to media of any type, or internet - just that those would exacerbate ongoing pattern, or perhaps complicate it or them.

Perhaps in the morning with coffee...

0 Replies

well, 'retribalization' (as described by McL on the first page) ain't necessary civic, i'd say. I did speak to Bob Putnam about a2k, actually, when I worked at Harvard quite a bit. He agreed that it shows all indicators of civicness (some internet participation does, some doesn't - internet, i'd say, is not one medium, but many, depending on what are you doing on it) - that is trust, participation, norms of reciprocity, cooperation.

one thing i would object to that is - that it lacks the local aspect. we may be civic in some 'world citizenry' sense, but if we want to debate grassroots activism, neighborhood, local civil society, a2k would probably be taking away from those, rather then contributing towards. which is ok, cause a2k is designed for the world citizenry audience. my question is what is happening with the local activism, will it continue to dwindle, will something happen that will connect the next generations to the places they live...

Another question I have to ponder: how will War in Iraq influence the civic society in America, if in any way? We've seen protests and demonstration, any signs of anything more permanent? Organized leftist citizenry? (research shows right wing citizenry remained organized through the years, it's the left that is declining)...

0 Replies

opposite of retribalization would be centralization, osso. i agree that media alone don't cause either one, depends on other trends in society and government, and not in the least in ownership of the media, who sets the agenda of public discourse... internet is great in that there is little control and gives people opportunity to create 'their own media' - providing alternative sources of information, platforms for organizing, etc. however people still rely (and most likely will for a long time) on main daily sources - papers, tv, radio... understandable, we need some unifying narrative, else we wouldn't even be able to communicate. so even if we dislike it, we still check the mainstream news. ehhhhh, where the heck am i going with this?
abort...

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

one thing i would object to that is - that it lacks the local aspect. we may be civic in some 'world citizenry' sense, but if we want to debate grassroots activism, neighborhood, local civil society, a2k would probably be taking away from those, rather then contributing towards. which is ok, cause a2k is designed for the world citizenry audience. my question is what is happening with the local activism, will it continue to dwindle, will something happen that will connect the next generations to the places they live...

IMO, this is a very different aspect than what Putnam is looking at. Activism usually implies people trying to get some government entity to do something. Putnam's focus is on "social capital" which dosen't rely on government and I think you get to some extent with forums such as A2K. In the 1930s I might have walked next door and asked my neighbor if they had a recipe for apple pie. Today I can post a question on A2K and get answers from hundreds of "neighbors". People ask for all sorts of personal advice on here which is the sort of thing that we would have asked our close friends for in an earlier age. A2K has also afforded several of our members emotional support as well. We've had several people that have fallen to serious illness and they get messages, cards, phone calls, etc for support.

But I think the A2K local/international aspect really depends on where your "local" is. If I had an something I needed physical help with I'm fairly confident that if I posted an appeal to the Bostonians on A2K they'd respond if it were possible for them just as my neighbors might have 50 or 60 years ago. Is A2K any different than the Red Cross? If I joined the Red Cross I'd be assigned to a local chapter of an International organization. On A2K I'm a member of an international forum too. I can also choose to particiapte in local A2K gatherings and associate with locals I've met through A2K. The "A2K Bostonians" is my local chapter. Wink

Instead of a membership card I get a username.

0 Replies

Here's a little song by Le Tigre, grrl power pioneer, Kathleen Hanna's rock band, decrying the internet in how it has sapped participation in political activism, how perhaps as a result of the internet, political activism seems even passé:

Get Off The Internet

It feels so 80's
Or early 90's
To be political
Where are my friends?
(Get off the internet!)
I'll meet u in the street
(Get off the internet!)
Destroy the right wing
(Get off the internet!)
I'll meet u in the street
(Get off the internet!)
Destroy the right wing
This is repetitive
But nothing has changed
And I'm crazy
Where are my friends
(Get off the internet!)
I'll meet u in the street
(Get off the internet!)
Destroy the right wing
(Get off the internet!)
I'll meet u in the street
(Get off the internet!)
Destroy the right wing

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

Here's a little song by Le Tigre, grrl power pioneer, Kathleen Hanna's rock band, decrying the internet in how it has sapped participation in political activism, how perhaps as a result of the internet, political activism seems even passé:

In spite of the naivete & inarticulateness of the lyrics, I"d agree with the underlying sentiment.
The growth of the internet & instant, global communication is mirrored by an equal slump in activism, protest and for want of better expression "people power". It goes some way to explain why people aren't 'marching in the streets' against the Iraq war (balance the public response to that with the Vietnam war). There was also plenty of internet noise against Bush and the result of the Florida election depriving Gore of the presidency - but where was the democratic protest? (balance that against the public response to last year's Ukrainian election.)
It seems to me that McLuhan's prescience is even more applicable today, "The new electronic independence re-creates the world in the image of a global village." with the key word being "image", it's not reality - however much people seem to think it is.
So, people can 'vent' on forums like A2K, but it is no substitute for activism and direct involvement. Opinions given here, arguments raged here won't change reality one jot. A2K et al might change an individual's opinion or insight, but won't change the world order. Having said that, such outlets do salve our innate need to feel significant and allow us the freedom to express opinions, which in other times under different regimes, wouldn't be expressed. But do they change society? I think not.
We may be part of the technology-affluent west, but we should always bear in mind that affluency inevitably creates poverty - fiscal poverty, intellectual poverty, a poverty of conscience and political poverty. To close with another McLuhan quote, "Innumerable confusions and a feeling of despair invariably emerge in periods of great technological and cultural transition."

0 Replies

tonyf wrote:

So, people can 'vent' on forums like A2K, but it is no substitute for activism and direct involvement. Opinions given here, arguments raged here won't change reality one jot. A2K et al might change an individual's opinion or insight, but won't change the world order. Having said that, such outlets do salve our innate need to feel significant and allow us the freedom to express opinions, which in other times under different regimes, wouldn't be expressed. But do they change society? I think not.

IMO, this is an extremely short sighted and limited view of the impact of the Internet. Howard Dean is a perfect example of someone who embraced the internet and I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that it didn't "change things one jot". He went from a relative unknown outside of his home state to a man that unseated the DLC from power in the Democratic Party and is now the Party head.

Moveon.org has become one of the leading voices of the political left almost entirely through it's use of the Internet. As an organization it now has more of a voice in political affairs than many of the unions and non-porfits that used to occupy the space (NARAL, NOW, PETA, etc..).

How much money did both Dean and Moveon.org riase from individual contributors on through the Internet?? Both were bragging that it was more than they collected through traditional means during the last campaign season.

The only part of your post I agree with is that the Internet isn't a replacement for direct involvement. To see it a a replacement for direct involvement however, is grossly missing the point. The Internet is a means of communications. If it replaces anything it is TV, Radio and print media. Groups no longer have to get on the evening news or on the front page of the newspaper to draw attention to their cause. They don't need to hold public rallies as publicity stunts to be known. They can gain recognition and membership (and as a result, $$) over the Internet instead.

0 Replies

i agree with both of you.

while i see the point that tonyf brings up that a site like this is not 'civic' or 'grassroots' or activists in the classical sense of those words (neighborhood involvement, taking action locally, being out there on the streets...) it is more and more aparent that the meaning of those concepts is shifting. and a 'citizen' today is not the same as the 'citizen' was fifty, seventy years ago. perhaps not even the same as twenty years back.
does it or does it not change anything? Dunno. I myself have learned a lot here and was motivated by information i gained at this site. while it's not a classical civic action, it is, well, somehting. a community that expands knowledge of its own members must contribute towards change in some way, albeit indirect.

0 Replies

Many people who use the internet frequently are now getting their news from print media, political groups and blogs. I would guess that more of us are better informed on the issues in our country than ever before.

Someone already mentioned action groups, Move-On, National Wildlife, Southern Poverty Law Center, Nature Conservancy, to name a few that hold my interest. I also read newspapers from every part of the world.

From my perspective, the local community has been diminishing for a few decades, but Dys and I have found Albuquerque to be different than cities of similar size in other parts of the country. There is still a very real sense of community, people are friendlier--possibly/probably due to the large hispanic population here--family is everything and that includes extended families, so maybe the ethnic makeup of a city will determine its local strength.

I'm not very familiar with McCluhan or sociology, but the changes are so dramatic that even I have been amazed at the difference in our society. Entry level jobs require a knowledge of the computer. Computer use is being taught in the earliest grades. Has this caused another kind of generation gap? Yes, for lots of families. Children have always thought they were much more intelligent than their parents; well, these days it appears to be true, although it is limited to knowledge of the computer (thank heaven!).

Perhaps local towns will develop good internet sites that will attract users and lead to personal interaction in local politics and services. Move-On has done that on a national level.

I am hesitant to respond on these threads because I'm not very knowledgable, but this is something that I have been obseving for twenty years---I'm still amazed at the impact of the internet and will continue to watch the changes in society caused by its use.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

IMO, this is an extremely short sighted and limited view of the impact of the Internet. Howard Dean is a perfect example of someone who embraced the internet and I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that it didn't "change things one jot". He went from a relative unknown outside of his home state to a man that unseated the DLC from power in the Democratic Party and is now the Party head.

I can't agree with you on this point. Howard Dean may exemplify an "interneteer" , but the wider point I was making throughout the post was that people who are technologically-affluent, will use the internet to their advantage. But, the majority of the world, and I'd hazard a guess and say the majority of the US, are not technology-affluent and do not benefit from the $$ raised. There is a danger that the internet and internet-generated wealth will ultimately be divisive, rather than inclusive.

Moveon.org has become one of the leading voices of the political left almost entirely through it's use of the Internet. As an organization it now has more of a voice in political affairs than many of the unions and non-porfits that used to occupy the space (NARAL, NOW, PETA, etc..).
Can't comment on moveon.org as I have never come across them. But, while it has as you say, "more of voice in political affairs.....space", is it taking the members of the unions and non-profit organisations with it or is it effectively disenfranchising them by creating a technology-affluent elite? I don't know as I'm not US-based.

How much money did both Dean and Moveon.org riase from individual contributors on through the Internet?? Both were bragging that it was more than they collected through traditional means during the last campaign season.
But is the amount of money raised a valid measure iof effectiveness. Wouldn't such a measure be more effective/beneficial if it said "we have taken x million people out of minimum wage jobs" or "we have successfully lobbied and had the law changed on employment rights/health care/equal rights" I'm not convinced by anyone who says our biggest achievement has been to raise more money......it's what is done with the money that is the real achievement

The only part of your post I agree with is that the Internet isn't a replacement for direct involvement. To see it a a replacement for direct involvement however, is grossly missing the point.
No, I wasn't missing the point, I was concurring with the lyrics of the song - people are not involving themselves in active politics and protest. They are using the internet to get across a point of view - but I am yet to be convinced that sufficient people listen to opinion from the internet.
The Internet is a means of communications.
I agree. We disagree on its effectiveness, that's all.
If it replaces anything it is TV, Radio and print media.
Isn't it more of an addition to existing media, not a replacement. The internet is not the first place I look for news and world events (& as we have the BBC for accuracy & impartiality in the news, that's not surprising) I follow up using the internet, but wouldn't trust it per se as the main source of news/information.

Groups no longer have to get on the evening news or on the front page of the newspaper to draw attention to their cause. They don't need to hold public rallies as publicity stunts to be known. They can gain recognition and membership (and as a result, $$) over the Internet instead.
I'd question that assumption. Not all groups with very worthy causes have access to the internet. It may be OK in techology-affluent Boston, but rather less so in areas of technological-poverty. I have a friend in rural, north New England who can't get cable in the area and has to rely on dial-up Smile

0 Replies

tonyf wrote:

I can't agree with you on this point. Howard Dean may exemplify an "interneteer" , but the wider point I was making throughout the post was that people who are technologically-affluent, will use the internet to their advantage. But, the majority of the world, and I'd hazard a guess and say the majority of the US, are not technology-affluent and do not benefit from the $$ raised. There is a danger that the internet and internet-generated wealth will ultimately be divisive, rather than inclusive.

How do they not benefit??? The basic premise of your post here seems to be that someone can't benefit from something that they don't have a direct hand in. That is a demonstrably false assumption. For example, Labor Unions forced companies to improve wages and labor conditions and the results of that impacted workers that weren't union members as well. One need not be technology affluent to benefit from those that are. (They can be hurt by those that are just as well. It all depends on which world view the technology affluent manage to get across.)

Quote:

Can't comment on moveon.org as I have never come across them. But, while it has as you say, "more of voice in political affairs.....space", is it taking the members of the unions and non-profit organisations with it or is it effectively disenfranchising them by creating a technology-affluent elite? I don't know as I'm not US-based.

Since labor unions and many other groups were losing members prior to the existance of the Internt and groups like Moveon.org it would be very hard to prove any claim that they have any effect in the motivations towards participation and/or membership in them.

Quote:

But is the amount of money raised a valid measure iof effectiveness. Wouldn't such a measure be more effective/beneficial if it said "we have taken x million people out of minimum wage jobs" or "we have successfully lobbied and had the law changed on employment rights/health care/equal rights" I'm not convinced by anyone who says our biggest achievement has been to raise more money......it's what is done with the money that is the real achievement

Cause and effect. The simple truth is that you can't get elected to office without raising $$ in the U.S. and those in office can have a much greater effect on events than those that aren't (witness the impact of Bush's decisions in the last 2 years vs. Kerry's decisions).

Quote:

No, I wasn't missing the point, I was concurring with the lyrics of the song - people are not involving themselves in active politics and protest. They are using the internet to get across a point of view - but I am yet to be convinced that sufficient people listen to opinion from the internet.

People weren't involving themselves in active politics and protests before anyone was technology affluent. Compare the number of people physically participating in protests in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the current decade. The numbers dropped drastically from the 70s to the 80s and that was prior to the general public having any access to the Internet.

Quote:

Isn't it more of an addition to existing media, not a replacement. The internet is not the first place I look for news and world events (& as we have the BBC for accuracy & impartiality in the news, that's not surprising) I follow up using the internet, but wouldn't trust it per se as the main source of news/information.

From some people (the luddites! lol) it is an extension. For others it is a replacement.

You'll trust the BBC news broadcast but you won't trust their WWW site? Is the NY Times WWW site carrying different news than their printed paper? Do they cover the news differently between the two? Since the BBC's news isn't readily available to me would I be being mislead if I relied on their WWW site? I'd agree that one has to choose which WWW sites to trust but I'd disagree that there aren't sites that can be trusted to present the same news you'd get via TV or a newspaper.

Quote:

I'd question that assumption. Not all groups with very worthy causes have access to the internet.

Perhaps. But I'd wager that any group with a worthy cause has supporters that DO have internet access. If a group chooses not to utilize the Internet is that a problem for people that do use the net or for the group? How is this any different than a worthy group not having access to television? Surely finding someone to setup a WWW site and post a group's message is easier then getting the press to cover them.

Quote:

I have a friend in rural, north New England who can't get cable in the area and has to rely on dial-up

And?? With dial-up access to the net they still have hundreds of thousands of more resources available to them than they do without it. How many local TV stations and newspapers do they have access to? Those that aren't technology affluent tend to have the same limitations on all facets of technology. Measure in any area and you'll find that when you compare rural areas to urban areas you have fewer local TV stations and newspapers. Why is limited access to the Internet any different than limited access to TV and print?

I'd also question how many groups have a physical presence in this rural community. Does the United Auto Workers have a local chapter? How about NOW or the NRA? How about offices for any of the major political parties??

Just as an example - If a resident of Caribou, Maine has a telephone and a computer they have the ability to access the net and the ACLU, NOW and UAW WWW sites. The ACLU's nearest physical office is right here in Boston - 400 miles away. The nearest NOW chapter office is 170 miles away in Bangor, ME. A UAW supporter would have to travel to Baltimore, MD to find an office. (The UAW doesn't even have a region that includes any of the New England states.)

0 Replies

bookmark

0 Replies

But then there is the example of the violent activism that is occuring in France, the organizers of which are using the internet to rally and organize supporters throughout the country.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

But then there is the example of the violent activism that is occuring in France, the organizers of which are using the internet to rally and organize supporters throughout the country.

Not a good example.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

tonyf wrote:
I can't agree with you on this point. Howard Dean may exemplify an "interneteer" , but the wider point I was making throughout the post was that people who are technologically-affluent, will use the internet to their advantage. But, the majority of the world, and I'd hazard a guess and say the majority of the US, are not technology-affluent and do not benefit from the $$ raised. There is a danger that the internet and internet-generated wealth will ultimately be divisive, rather than inclusive.

How do they not benefit??? The basic premise of your post here seems to be that someone can't benefit from something that they don't have a direct hand in. That is a demonstrably false assumption. For example, Labor Unions forced companies to improve wages and labor conditions and the results of that impacted workers that weren't union members as well. One need not be technology affluent to benefit from those that are. (They can be hurt by those that are just as well. It all depends on which world view the technology affluent manage to get across.)
Perhaps. Some will benefit, others won't. But that's looking at things from a distinct microcosm of a technologically affluent societ. My point was had a broader reference and encompassed societies where the internet is not widely available. I take your references on board, but still have doubts re the effectiveness elsewhere.

Quote:
Can't comment on moveon.org as I have never come across them. But, while it has as you say, "more of voice in political affairs.....space", is it taking the members of the unions and non-profit organisations with it or is it effectively disenfranchising them by creating a technology-affluent elite? I don't know as I'm not US-based.

Since labor unions and many other groups were losing members prior to the existance of the Internt and groups like Moveon.org it would be very hard to prove any claim that they have any effect in the motivations towards participation and/or membership in them.
It may also point to wider malaise concerning active participation and the internet is merely 'blipping' the figures upwards. I think it's too early to see identifiable trends and influences; give organisations like moveon.org 10-15 years and then see how effective they are/have been. I'm not pouring cold water over the internet or its effect on society, it is the main beneficial and postive but I do retain a healthy scepticism and I hope, objectivity. I use the internet daily for research and communication and couldn't do what I do without it. However, I do see it as 'tool' for the good. Essentially, I don't think we are disagreeing on the fundamentals, just its global effectiveness.

Quote:
But is the amount of money raised a valid measure iof effectiveness. Wouldn't such a measure be more effective/beneficial if it said "we have taken x million people out of minimum wage jobs" or "we have successfully lobbied and had the law changed on employment rights/health care/equal rights" I'm not convinced by anyone who says our biggest achievement has been to raise more money......it's what is done with the money that is the real achievement

Cause and effect. The simple truth is that you can't get elected to office without raising $$ in the U.S. and those in office can have a much greater effect on events than those that aren't (witness the impact of Bush's decisions in the last 2 years vs. Kerry's decisions).
I couldn't agree more! The dependence on wealth as a means to power in the US is worrying - always has been, always will be

Quote:
No, I wasn't missing the point, I was concurring with the lyrics of the song - people are not involving themselves in active politics and protest. They are using the internet to get across a point of view - but I am yet to be convinced that sufficient people listen to opinion from the internet.

People weren't involving themselves in active politics and protests before anyone was technology affluent. Compare the number of people physically participating in protests in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and the current decade. The numbers dropped drastically from the 70s to the 80s and that was prior to the general public having any access to the Internet.
There may be a variance between physical participation in the US and Europe - I don't have figures to show a drop or an increase, but I feel there hasn't been the same drop over here in Europe. In the UK we had the mass movement of the Miner's Strike in the 80's; the people's revolutions in many of the ex-soviet states in the 90's; the demonstrations against the elections in the Ukraine and latterly the 3-week-old disturbances in France. I'd guess that participation is running at the same, or possibly slightly higher levels decade-by-decade since the 1970s. The causes may be more disparate, but the groundswell seems to be still there.

Quote:
Isn't it more of an addition to existing media, not a replacement. The internet is not the first place I look for news and world events (& as we have the BBC for accuracy & impartiality in the news, that's not surprising) I follow up using the internet, but wouldn't trust it per se as the main source of news/information.

From some people (the luddites! lol) it is an extension. For others it is a replacement.

You'll trust the BBC news broadcast but you won't trust their WWW site? Is the NY Times WWW site carrying different news than their printed paper? Do they cover the news differently between the two? Since the BBC's news isn't readily available to me would I be being mislead if I relied on their WWW site? I'd agree that one has to choose which WWW sites to trust but I'd disagree that there aren't sites that can be trusted to present the same news you'd get via TV or a newspaper.
My fault for not being specific enough. Of course the level of trust of established news outlets, BBC, NYT, Washington Post is just the same whether it's internet based, print or broadcast. My gripe was really with non-established outlets. Some are much better than others - Wikipedia for example, is a fabulous resource and well worth everyone's support - but it doesn't yet have the kudos for reliability and authority/trust.

Quote:
I'd question that assumption. Not all groups with very worthy causes have access to the internet.

Perhaps. But I'd wager that any group with a worthy cause has supporters that DO have internet access. If a group chooses not to utilize the Internet is that a problem for people that do use the net or for the group? How is this any different than a worthy group not having access to television? Surely finding someone to setup a WWW site and post a group's message is easier then getting the press to cover them.
I'd agree in general - but too many causes and too many web sites just don't find an audience/readership and inevitably run out of steam.

Quote:
I have a friend in rural, north New England who can't get cable in the area and has to rely on dial-up

And??
And.......I'd have expected a techology-affluent society like the US to have nationwide cable access
With dial-up access to the net they still have hundreds of thousands of more resources available to them than they do without it. How many local TV stations and newspapers do they have access to? Those that aren't technology affluent tend to have the same limitations on all facets of technology. Measure in any area and you'll find that when you compare rural areas to urban areas you have fewer local TV stations and newspapers. Why is limited access to the Internet any different than limited access to TV and print?
No quibbles with you on these points.

I'd also question how many groups have a physical presence in this rural community. Does the United Auto Workers have a local chapter? How about NOW or the NRA? How about offices for any of the major political parties??

Just as an example - If a resident of Caribou, Maine has a telephone and a computer they have the ability to access the net and the ACLU, NOW and UAW WWW sites. The ACLU's nearest physical office is right here in Boston - 400 miles away. The nearest NOW chapter office is 170 miles away in Bangor, ME. A UAW supporter would have to travel to Baltimore, MD to find an office. (The UAW doesn't even have a region that includes any of the New England states.)

0 Replies

Impact of media on society: retribalization of modern world?

Related Topics