By: Marek Potapowicz, Brendan Ruddick, Dan Ward
How are digital networks transforming what it means to be a citizen today? As our daily routines of interaction are becoming dependant on digital, compressing (at times eviscerating) what were once critical human connections to time and place, where does this leave public space— an element of our urban fabric essential for the formulation and articulation of political opinions, civic engagement, engendering conceptions of morality?
Over the last thirty years, our urban existence has been radically transformed. In advanced urban economies, toiling in factories has been replaced by activities intensive in knowledge and capital, where devising new products capable of extending human productivity and possibility have become the primary focus. Paradoxically, these very achievements in technological innovation have served to place in peril basic human characteristics and threaten a deeper, more fundamental script of our lives. A critical challenge--and one which this paper seeks to argue-- relates to how digital social networks’ are affecting on our long-held understanding of citizenship.
Where do we stand as autonomous individuals amidst a digitized society? Basic human expressions of identity appear poised for radical transformations, where social digital networks are resulting in hyper-individualization. However, given the importance of space and place to construction identity, and the omnipresent existence of digital networks (a network and social manifestation that is inherently spaceless), will our reliance on the virtual for human contact actually un-weave the social fabric which we are seeking to enhance? With digital social networks now deeply embedded in our society, how does citizenship as part of a website such as facebook differ in comparison to traditional citizenship to the state in regards to rights and responsibilities?
The notion of "public citizenship" is changing in an environment where our lives and daily processes are being carried out in cyber-digital networks. To understand how digital networks transform the classic understanding of citizenship means we must first grasp a classical interpretation, understanding its origins and structures that found it—the structures that are in the process of disintegrating.
Citizenship and the Nation State
The nation-state is a relatively recent institution, one that emerged following the creation of the nation-state system in Europe as part of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The “nation-state” was understood as a sovereign, unitary political entity whose constituents shared a general ethnic and cultural heritage. We can accept the definition of the state as “an organization employing specialized personnel, which controls a consolidated territory and is recognized as autonomous and integral by the agents of other states” (Tilly, 1975, p. 70).
The nation-state is a relatively recent institution, one that emerged following the creation of the nation-state system in Europe as part of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. The “nation-state” was understood as a sovereign, unitary political entity whose constituents shared a general ethnic and cultural heritage. We can accept the definition of the state as “an organization employing specialized personnel, which controls a consolidated territory and is recognized as autonomous and integral by the agents of other states” (Tilly, 1975, p. 70).
Traditional notions of public citizenship have been rooted in place and tied to ones membership in a sovereign nation state. The Westphalian state system gave rise to a conception of citizenship based on social contract theory, where a certain morality was thought to be engendered by the submission of individual autonomy to the sovereign for the betterment of all (Gray, 2001, p. 23). With this submission to rule of law and a particular social order, specific entitlements have traditionally been granted to citizens (ie. government assistance, tax incentives, a plethora of social programs, unrestricted employment opportunity, free movement within the state etc.) This fundamental notion of citizenship is undergoing profound mutations due to numerous technological, political, social and economic processes.
Projections of a neoliberal world view have freed capital and thus allowed for rapid technological innovation which has resulted in the digitization of our modern lives. International economic agreements promoting free trade and ultimately capital mobility, as held up in World Trade Organization (WTO), represents the effectual transfer particular leavers and autonomy that was once reserved for the independent state. Political changes have occurred in concert with the economic changes above, an expression of a broader neoliberal world view whose effects serve to decentralize authority on a fragmented and global scale. Collectively, this process gives rise to a hypermobility of global interactions, of capital, trade of all kinds and communication. Although neoliberal policies have contributed to technological innovation and subsequent digitization of society, the point is not that these two processes are intrinsically linked and therefore inseparable. In fact as ubiquitous digital networks continue to envelop every facet of our interactions our lives become increasingly dis-attached from, political ideology, action and government policy. In our present context, this language of mobility can be understood in terms of ‘flows’, ‘deterritorializations’ and ‘networks.’ Together, this represents a tendency towards decentralization that has significant implications to our understanding of citizenship.
In a context where significant social interaction is mediated through privately owned social networking sites what is the meaning of, exclusion? As a citizen in Canada you have the right to enter, remain in and leave the country (Article 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms). Essentially, this right guarantees one to remain present in Canadian society. However, social networking sites such as Facebook specify that breaking the rules may result in one’s withdrawal from the network, in a sense usurping one’s right to remain in society
Digital Citizenship
A critical part of the Canadian justice system is that the severity of a punishment must be proportional to the offence. Yet, Facebook’s administrators have the right to deactivate one’s account for such offenses as repeated copyright infringement. Once their account has been deactivated, a person may not open a new account without first obtaining permission (www.facebook.com). Banishment from society for copyright infringement would clearly be disproportionally severe. Yet withdrawing one’s access to the facilitative infrastructure of cyber-society is equivalent to absolute banishment from one’s community. That today’s networked demi-gods live under the threat of expulsion exposes the frailty of techno-social boundary extensions. Where Adam and Eve were cast away from Paradise by the supreme authority of God, at who’s hands does one’s exclusion from the digital heavens of networked human-demigods get cast down? Who will be the god of gods?
A critical part of the Canadian justice system is that the severity of a punishment must be proportional to the offence. Yet, Facebook’s administrators have the right to deactivate one’s account for such offenses as repeated copyright infringement. Once their account has been deactivated, a person may not open a new account without first obtaining permission (www.facebook.com). Banishment from society for copyright infringement would clearly be disproportionally severe. Yet withdrawing one’s access to the facilitative infrastructure of cyber-society is equivalent to absolute banishment from one’s community. That today’s networked demi-gods live under the threat of expulsion exposes the frailty of techno-social boundary extensions. Where Adam and Eve were cast away from Paradise by the supreme authority of God, at who’s hands does one’s exclusion from the digital heavens of networked human-demigods get cast down? Who will be the god of gods?
Traditional conceptions of citizenship emphasize the upholding of particular moral and civic obligations towards others. In its study guide, Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship, which prepares aspiring immigrants for their citizenship exam, the Canadian government summarizes the basic responsibilities of citizenship as follows: ‘to obey the law’, ‘take responsibility for oneself and one’s family’, ‘serve on a jury’, ‘vote in elections’, ‘help others in the community’, as well as ‘protect and enjoy [Canada’s] heritage and environment’; while not mandatory, service in the Canadian Armed Forces is encouraged (http://www.cic.gc.ca). Similarly, Sanford (2007) characterises ‘typical citizenship’ as comprising ‘law abidingness’, ‘work-ethic’, ‘contribution to organizations’, ‘voting’ and ‘awareness of political affairs.
While traditional notions of citizenship stress the responsibilities one has towards society and the state, sites promoting good digital citizenship focus primarily on the importance of safe networking and idealistic notions of universal access and ‘netiquette’ (Deuze, 2006, p. 15). Characteristics of this new citizenship include the following: that all members of society have access to digital communication, that people learn how to “effective consumers in a new digital economy”, the ability to make effective choices vis-à-vis the selection of digital communication technologies, respect of digital law (related to privacy and hacking of others), ensuring one’s physical and psychological wellbeing (avoiding monitor-induced eye-injuries or addiction for example), and finally, guaranteeing one’s digital security (preventing hacking and data theft) (Ribble and Bailey, 2004). Digital citizenship differs from traditional citizenship in its emphasis on consumer ‘hyena’ rather than civic engagement.
Identity, belonging and civic engagement
Civic engagement can be defined as “individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public concern” which can include anything from volunteering in a soup kitchen to participating in the electoral process (APA, 2011). Yet the notion of public concern is rooted in having a common belonging to a group. In the past state or cultural nationalism and class distinctions have provided much of the basis for social cohesion and common purpose. The fragmentation of identity, which began with the decline of the nation state, has drastically accelerated through the digitalization of public space and social interaction.
The resulting hyperindividualism has stretched out identity structures beyond the limits of even the most pluralistic state. As people’s identity anchors -exercised through cyber-citizenship- shift away from the national and even regional levels and towards the individual level, each citizen becomes his own nation, branding agency and cultural in the virtual realm of techno-citizenship. Fractal identities beget fractal belonging structures giving rise to a network rhizome of person-states as opposed to traditional nation-state or regional structures of belonging. Social interactions of perpetually changing, short lived, and superficial interest and consumption coalitions-making are played out through ‘international’ relations among a myriad of one-person states over the network.
New technologies and social networking have led to contradictory developments in the notions and behaviours surrounding privacy and intimacy: on the one hand people broadcast their lives in blogs and social media sites, relatively indiscriminate of their audience, while at the same time protecting themselves from such public intrusions as unexpected telephone calls through caller-display, preferring time-delayable means of communication such as text or e-mail. Our behaviour changed with the shift from land line to cell phone which in turn further influenced cell phone capabilities and interfaces, and thus once again our behaviour was enticed to change. Thus, we live in a continuous state of metamorphosis increasingly cocooned by the technologies we create.
One aspect of civic life is that it is separate from one’s private life. Yet increasingly, the lines between public and private life are blurred as our interactions with others move to the virtual world. Notions of intimacy are redefined as people shift from interactions of exclusion, where people share different levels of personal information depending on their relationships to one another, to interactions of wide ranging personal broadcasting, essentially transforming social relations into voyeuristic and exhibitionist exchanges of user-created content in a public space where intimacy is annihilated by system-deterministic eavesdropping, transforming our lives into non-stop reality TV programmes (Baudrillard, 1996, p.28). We have voluntarily entered the panopticon and replaced the guards in the prison’s centre with corporations (data mining), the government (policing investigations and surveillance) and peers (‘friends’ and other collaborators in digital social networks).
Surveillance
Whereas the notion of Orwelian surveillance was once a source of concern, today people embrace surveillance environments without a second thought.Indeed, “if the gaseous dispersion of urban structures is one possibility entertained by digital networks, its other side is the enhanced capacity for tracking individual movements, choices and communications, and aggregating them into searchable databases.” (Hopfenbeck, 2010, p.89). Air miles and customer-loyalty cards allow corporations to record your purchases andcorrelate these with geographic and socio-economic data for improved marketing.Similarly, website ‘memberships’ requiring log-in permit websites to track web activity and online purchases. Site personalization and user-data associations through the use of ‘cookies’ can be used for similar purposes, posing a threat to anonymity when linked to credit card information. Social networking sites encourage self-broadcasting of one’s personal life to a broad audience ranging from intimate friends to casual associations, leaving one oblivious to voyeuristic interaction underway at any given moment (Albrechtslund, 2008).
The inclusion of cameras and microphones on most personal digital devices such as laptops and cell-phones that many people carry throughout the day (and sleep beside at night) results in the pre-installation of the requisite technology for constant surveillance by hackers, warranted police agents, or even unwarranted national security agencies of one’s activities. These presence of these technologies coupled with the ‘digitalization of culture’ -which includes reliance on social networks- accentuates the techno-‘hausmannization’ of public space discussed by Hopfenbeck (2010, p.89). Not only may public space activities be known to authorities, they may be halted at any moment by network administrators or government interference.
Conclusion
In light of what we have discussed, it is conceivable that digital networks, more importantly digital social networks present significant challenges to citizenship. Throughout their evolution cities have been shaped by social behaviour, while at the same time, social behaviour has been outlined by our cities. Close-knit social cohesion was maintained by urban spaces where interactions were done face-to-face.
In light of what we have discussed, it is conceivable that digital networks, more importantly digital social networks present significant challenges to citizenship. Throughout their evolution cities have been shaped by social behaviour, while at the same time, social behaviour has been outlined by our cities. Close-knit social cohesion was maintained by urban spaces where interactions were done face-to-face.
Citizenship was possible because individuals were bound by a common sense of belonging. Citizenship requires strong identities of belonging. Identity itself, however, is predicated on differentiation based on the limits of space and time. Social networking has dissolved these limitations and ushered in a new realm of ‘non-space’ for social connections, often replacing traditional forms of interaction. The emergence of social networking has ushered in a new area of social interaction no longer carried out in physical space with the presence of the body.
The possibility of being present practically anywhere at any given time, interacting with people and cultures all over the Globe results in identity micro-differentiation: belonging to a larger group has been replaced by ephemeral and short lived interest associations scattered across borders and made immediately available through the network. Digital citizenship reflects consumer interests more than civic engagement of national citizenship. While individuals are decentralising their identities and social presence, the very foundations of techno-social interaction are highly centralized. Religion is no longer the opiate of the masses; it has been replaced by the digital, the virtual.
References:
Aihwa Ong (2006), Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
Aihwa Ong (2006), Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.
Albrechtslund, A. (2008) First Monday, “Online Social Media and Participatory Surveillance”, 13(3-3).
APA (American Psycological Association). “Civic Engagment Engagment”, American Psycological Association. Retrieved From: (http://www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement.aspx) [Accessed March 31st 2011]
Baudirllard, J. (1996), The Perfect Crime, New York, Verseo.
CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) (2011), “Study Guide – Discover Canada The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”, Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Retrieved from: (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-04.asp [Accessed March 31st, 2011]
Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture. In: The Information Society 22(2), pp.63-75.
Gray, C. H. (2002). Cyborg citizen: politics in the posthuman age. New York: Routledge.
Hopfenbeck, C. J. (2010). The liquid city . S.l.: XLibris.
Ribble M. S., J DBailey, J. D., (2004), “Digital citizenship: Focus Questions for Implementation”, International Society for Technology in Education, Retrieved from: http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/uploads/2ndLL.pdf [Accessed April 1st, 2011]
Sanford, S.(2007). Civic Life in the Information Age. New York: Palgrave Macmillan
Tilly, C.(1975), "Reflections on the History of European State-Making." In The Formation of National States in Western Europe Charles Tilly (Eds.) Princeton: Princeton University Press.
