Christopher D. Sessums :: Blog :: Liberation and the Internet

Liberation and the Internet:
Communities of practice and the power to connect.


In her essay “Reflections on Liberation,” Suzanne Pharr discusses liberation politics as a means of “breaking down the barriers that prevent a large portion of the population from having access to economic and social justice” (Pharr 2000, p. 450). She goes on to outline the challenge of such politics:

This is the challenge for all of us. The work of liberation politics is to change the hearts and minds, develop empathy with and the sympathy for other people, and help each other discover how we are inextricably linked together for our common good and our survival on this planet (Pharr 2000, p. 450).

Given this call to action, the Internet – a global system of interconnected computer networks – presents a unique opportunity for linking people together for a common good, as Pharr suggests, as well as a chance to redefine social power.


The Power of the Internet

The Internet allows information to be stored, retrieved and exchanged over great distances between people of all types and persuasions regardless of sex, race, gender, sexual identity, and age [the question of ableism is still being addressed by a number of national and international committees working to insure equality of access; however, there are still many technological hurdles to cross]. The Internet and the World Wide Web (i.e., the web) provide a powerful means of organization and communication that is fast, global, and growing rapidly. Current estimates (2004-5) of global Internet usage (http://global-reach.biz/globstats/index.php3) reveal that over 700 million people around the world are accessing the web. This powerful and relatively new force in our culture presents numerous opportunities for people of all political stripes to organize, connect, communicate, reflect and act for change on both local and international stages.


Communities of practice

One way that the Internet provides an opportunity for social power is the idea of “communities of practice” (Wenger 1998). Online communities of practice can be organized as a means of connecting people with shared interests regardless of time and place. An essential tenet of the communities of practice model is that individual members form communities, not a centralized organizing body. Their strength is connecting members to each other and not necessarily disseminating information.

Communities of practice have the potential of bringing people together to work on common causes. This interconnectivity can lead to the collaboration of multiple voices that can create and support democratic values and discourse. An example of such a community includes the National Society for Black Engineers (http://www.nsbe.org/), an online student-managed organization designed to foster culturally responsible black engineers “who excel academically, succeed professionally and positively impact the community” (http://www.nsbe.org/aboutnsbe/mission.php). Another example is dotOut (http://www.dotout.org), a grassroots, political organization representing gay and lesbian voters in Dorchester, MA. These communities were formed by their members via the Internet to assist others who share a similar identity or agenda. Such online communities of practice can be politically liberating in their ability to assist individuals in connecting and building relationships, in gathering and sharing information, and in their ability to be autonomous and self-governing.

As Pharr points out, such communities of practice do run the risk of being misused and disingenuous. Pharr suggests “[a] danger of diversity politics lies in the possibility that it may become a tool of oppression by creating the illusion of participation when in fact there is no shared power” (Pharr 2000, p. 455). The communities of practice mentioned above (Black engineers, gays and lesbians) are commonly recognized by their “identity politics,” whose members seek to connect to those who share a single, common identity. Pharr warns us that this type of politics may be a “limited, hierarchical approach, reducing people of multiple identities to a single identity” (Pharr 2000, p. 455). On the other hand, organizing by identity provides a point of focus, self-reflection and education outside the dominant culture, as well as development of camaraderie and group cohesion. Thus, identity politics can bring marginalized people and groups to the fore, providing visibility and collective strength; but these communities must be sensitive to those forces that helped to form them in the first place.


Liberation or continued oppression?

Pharr critically acknowledges the dual nature of diversity/identity politics. While giving a voice to the disenfranchised, this type of politics does not embody the needs and concerns of others who are marginalized or oppressed. Pharr reminds us that oppressions are interconnected; they are social and systemic, where one group can assert control over another, denying people fundamental rights. Can the same be said regarding control over the Internet? Given the Internet’s capability and potential to connect people and ideas around the globe regardless of sex, race, or creed, will it serve as a potent vehicle for the redistribution of power or will it re-focus power along dominant class and racial lines?

In the Journal of Black Studies, author Colin Beckles notes: “[a]s the benefits of Internet use become concentrated primarily in the hands of White society, a worldwide de facto state of cyber-segregation may become manifest” (Beckles 2001, p. 312). Beckles makes a critical point: he sees Internet use in socioeconomic terms. This argument calls into view a greater question of what has come to be known as the “digital divide,” i.e., the socioeconomic gap between communities that have access to computers and the Internet and those who do not. This “divide” clearly presents itself as a barrier to those without access to computers and the Internet and limits certain forms of participation in liberation politics. Will being absent from cyberspace lead to continued forms of racism, classism, exclusion and isolation from social and economic power?

Bridging the gap

So how are leaders of the many political communities addressing the problem global Internet access? Perhaps admitting there is a gap is a good first step to addressing the problem. Building alliances is another positive step sited by Ricky Sherover-Marcuse in targeting oppression (Sherover-Marcuse 2000). Following the communities of practice model, the Digital Divide Network (http://digitaldividenetwork.org/) serves as a community for educators, policy makers, and concerned citizens dedicated to bridging the digital divide. Their web site provides links to communities that focus on ways people can become pro-actively involved, articles, weblogs, discussion boards, and events calendars that encourage and support access to cyberspace and its potential for educating and liberating all people. Such organizations recognize the importance of generosity, fairness, responsibility and freedom that is requisite for building an agenda that seeks to foster diversity and eliminate oppression.


What can educators do?

In terms of liberation politics, how can educators make a difference in their classrooms? How can the Internet be used effectively to address issues of diversity and oppression? The Internet can only be as effective/affective in the classroom in terms of how lessons are designed. As a resource, the Internet fosters access to online communities, readings, images, arguments and opportunities to get involved in any number of specific topical/political arenas.

A fellow doctoral student who is a full-time elementary school teacher recently shared with me her students’ online weblogs. She constructed a space on the Internet where her students could share and reflect on each other’s work. In August, her students were assigned to take several African proverbs from other countries and interpret them in terms of their own cultural understanding. This provided a multicultural way of connecting social aspects of a different country and cultural to students’ own culture. While students could have easily done this activity with paper and pencil, the Internet gave them a chance to become familiar with a different part of the world by literally visiting sites and people in Nigeria. Students had the opportunity to see that although they may be separated by thousands of miles and have different cultural heritages, there were certain ideas (and morals) that people share no matter where they are, no matter what their socio-political context is. This is a powerful initial step in terms of getting a dominant, privileged culture to recognize and empathize with a marginalized group. Could such an exercise or lesson be conducted without the Internet? Of course it could. However, since the instructor had access to computers and the web, she saw an opportunity to take advantage of the technology as well as engage her students in developing a link to others for a common good.

Conclusion

The Internet is a powerful technology that creates an opportunity for people to organize and communicate around the globe regardless of time and place. This technology can serve as a liberational means for linking people together for a common good as well as providing a chance to redefine social power underlying structural oppression. Communities of practice are regularly forming to connect people and ideas of mutual interest. Critics note that there is always a risk that these communities can become “limited, hierarchical [in their] approach, reducing people of multiple identities to a single identity” (Pharr 2000, p. 455). However, if online communities remain sensitive to the politics of oppression, they stand a strong chance of providing collective strength and visibility to their causes unimagined by earlier generations of people.



References:

Beckles, C.A. (2001). Black liberation and the internet: A strategic analysis. Journal of Black Studies, 31(3), 311-324.

Pharr, S. (2000). Reflections on liberation. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 450-457). New York: Routledge.

Sherover-Marcuse, R. (2000). Working assumptions and guidelines for alliance building. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda, H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 486-487). New York: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.