I recently spent some time re-reading Ulises Mejias’ post on "Socialist" Software for a professional development assignment on hot-button issues surrounding teaching, learning, and technology.
Mejias’ post got me thinking about democracy, agency, and the idea of “open-ness” afforded by many Web technologies. I then began to reflect on current issues surrounding Net Neutrality and the DOPA Act , which triggered a series of thoughts about the future of the Internet and our collective society.
The Internet is a public (social) space and as such a necessarily political one.
Mejias notes:
Technology can facilitate more than one type of technological civilization, and each generation must struggle to define which type of civilization it wants, or have someone else's desires imposed on them. There is no point in waiting for the democratic technologies of the future, because they have always been at our reach.
This got me wondering -- will succeeding generations work towards defining the type of civilization they want, or will they unconsciously accept the imposed desires of others?
I started a cursory search of age demographics and young voter trends. I wanted to see if there was any data about the number of younger voters and how they see themselves. Are they registered? Do they vote? What are the issues that concern them or motivate them?
The Youth Vote Coalition offers the following statistics concerning young voters in the U.S.:
- 18-25 year olds make up 14.4% of the total eligible voters
- 18-30 year olds make up 24% of total eligible voters
- 42% of 18-24 year olds cast a ballot in 2000
- Four out of every five students report following current events - with 26% indicating that they follow current events "very closely."
- In focus groups, young adults express that the best way to increase voter participation is to have candidates speak about the issues that concern young adults.
- 45% say that the economy will be the most important factor they consider when deciding which candidate to support for President.
- 54% support affirmative action programs for minorities and women for admissions to colleges and universities.
- 61% of college students oppose legalizing marijuana.
- 26% believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 53% in some circumstances and 20% believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.
- 81% agree that the government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would affect some of your basic civil liberties such a personal privacy or free speech.
- When all 73.3 million of the 0-18 year old come of voting age, they will be larger than the Baby Boomers (71.8 million)
- 45% of young people say that other young people are most likely to convince them to vote.
The last two statistics stood out for me. Given that the current majority of voters are older Baby Boomers whose political and social identities were formed before the existence of the Internet, the Millennials will eventually become the voice of the U.S., a demographic who has never known life without it.
The last statistic on the list also stands out in my mind. Almost half of the eligible young voters polled are most likely to take their positions based on what a friend tells them. Is this really true? Does this seem right to you? Will MySpace and Facebook become the battleground states in a national or even local election?
This leads me back to the question of what role government and society plays in mediating Internet commons. Ulises points to an essay by Feenberg that describes the Internet as “a scene of social struggle,” and as such, the space it provides requires a certain level of negotiation and interpretation.
Will the sociopolitical situation of those involved in it lead us to a state of open-ness and transparency or will it evolve into a larger black box mirroring the U.S.’s current executive policies of secrecy and hegemonic agency and control?
If “81% agree that the government should take steps to prevent additional acts of terrorism but not if those steps would affect some of your basic civil liberties such a personal privacy or free speech,” then what does that really mean? What are the consequences of preventing additional acts of terrorism? Doesn’t that necessarily imply a certain level of compromised privacy? (This also leads to the question of who decided terrorism should be a concern?)
The reality is the Internet and Web technologies are actors in a network of complex associations and situations. And as Mejias notes, this space “can be used for different purposes according to different political agendas, and evolve accordingly”.
What will the social attitude of future generations accept? How will they define issues of security, freedom, open-ness, democracy? Will they accept the status quo or will they struggle against it? Will social software afford more autonomy, openness and diversity or will it become co-modified and commercialized serving larger monied interests?
This would be a good conversation to start with teenagers, no?
Stay tuned...
References:
Mejias, U.A. (2206). "Socialist" Software. Ideant. Retrieved 07 July 2006 from http://ideant.typepad.com/ideant/2006/05/socialist_softw.html.
Picture credit: Claude Monet, Impression, soleil levant 1873
Keywords: Andrew Feenberg, critical pedagogy, democracy, diversity, DOPA Act, freedom, hegemony, Internet, learning, Net Neutrality, politics, security, social software, teaching, technology, transparency, Ulises Mejias, voters, youth
Comments
As a baby boomer I find the list of statics interesting but not unusual, with the exception fo the marijuana numbers. I think most people regardless of their generation are more influenced by their friends---thus the power of "word of mouth" over traditional advertizing. I also think everyone wants to be more secure and fight terrorism but no one wants to sacrifice an iota of freedom regardless of the generation. One of the technologies that bound baby boomers together was the pervasiveness of television and the lack of networks. Thus from the '40s to well into the '70s, limited television viewing choices gave rise to the widespread popularity of various shows, fads, and fashions. That diminished when cable came along plus the price of televisions plummeted and there was one in every room of the home. The point is that there was vague cultural unity [no matter how skewed] for baby boomers. Maybe a similar argument could be made for millenials but I wonder. Internet access is limited more by geography and economics than government regulation. Tho the DOPA legislation is well named [for the dopes who proposed it] it does point to the continuing government [at all levels] effort to tax, restrict, and otherwise make the internet conform to someone's idea of what should be. By all means, start a conversation with teenagers regardless of their economic access or regional location.