Internet and Ideology Part 1 - Politics

Yesterday I posted about the ideological shift in politics, economics and society that occurred during the transition to modernity 200 years ago and comparing them with changes occurring now as we entered a period of post-modernity.

This post will specifically take a look at the changes to political ideologies in our internet society and examining what we can learn. These are not fully formed ideas; consider these blog posts as a note pad where I attempt to work out some of my thoughts in public.

The “politics of modernity” according to John Schwarzmantel is marked by

“the malleability of human nature. In contrast to the religious argument of the time that individuals were irredeemably marked by original sin … [modernity] took a more optimistic view of human nature and suggested the possibility of cooperation.”

Furthermore:

“These more positive attributes of human nature could be fostered by political or social institutions designed to encourage the cooperative spirits of human nature.”

I would argue that this view has prevailed pretty much unchanged for the past 200 years – at least until the coming of the social web.

While civil society has played a key part in fostering human cooperation, society’s endeavours were always dependent on institutions providing support, funds, direction and often a voice to facilitate change. Admittedly there are exceptions throughout history, but as a rule I would agree with Schwarzmantel’s suggestion.

Compare that with civil society in an internet age. Institutions are being disintermediated; individuals are organising themselves, membership organisations (political parties, charities etc) are losing out as barriers to participation and scalability are removed.

People no longer need – nor want - a rigid, hierarchically structured institution, they want  a ‘join in’ type of organisation operating as a flat network, not a ‘join us’ top-down one - as identified by David Wilcox. This is made possible and happening thanks to the internet and IMHO marks a key developmental stage of civil society in a post-modern world.

In short, when we entered modernity the political and social focus moved from a pre-determined world where lives were pre-determined according to religion and towards a world where individual rights came into existence: for the first time people’s lives could be self-determined.

However, that this vision of the modern civil society was dependent largely – if not entirely – on civil society institutions. In essence, people could recognise their individual liberty, but only through wider groups or institutions.

I would argue that it has taken until now and the rise of the social web for people truly to be able to shape civil society as individuals liberated from the traditional membership organisations the grew up 200 years ago.

Technorati tags: ideology, post-modernism, modernity, John Schwarzmantel, civil society, politics

Comments

[Andrew Arnold]

Its 'Springtime of the Peoples' and 1848 all over again!

[Ian Green]

Simon,

All god stuff but the world of social media remains the habitat of the Middle Classes, and White Collar bloggers. The Working Classes (white or otherwise) have no voice in this arena.
Or am I wrong? If so where are they?

[Mark Hanson]

The best political campaigns that use social media are esssentially getting back to the old ways - talking to voters, involving them in what you're doing. Not hiding away behind a photo opp or a TV based strategy where you control messages, talk in soundbites and generally detach the party from teh people running it.

In the old days, politicians would have to go to where the people where and you could get things done through a potical party through the shop steward or your local councillor - your party was your local faces.

Society has changed a lot and we no longer co-exist in small communities but people want more than soundbite politics. Technology has faciliated new communities and a new expectation of how the proles will interact with brands, councils and political parties.

Fascinating discussion though, will definitely keep an eye on it!

[Eamon]

Interesting post.

Just throwing up a few ideas (might be completely wrong) but don't you think feudalism also plays a part. The culture of feudalism existed in this country until not too very long ago - the second world war brought a radical demise to the old world(and it probably takes at least a generation for the effects to wear off). In feudalism, everyone knew their place (I have seen the same kind of thing in other countries that until 20 or so years ago where ultra conservative i.e. Spain).

And, possibly, the young of the 60's born during / just after the war (with their parents having fought in / participated in the war) were reacting to the memory of the way authorty had been abused by the Nazis and Facists in WW2 (only 20 odd years before - not that long). Without doubt the 60's have had a lasting affect on those of us today - im particular, our informality and so on.

Then the emergence of blues / rock with white kids, Vietnam War, and so on, also, had an important role to play too.

[Simon Collister]

@Ian - you're right of course. However I think the issue is not that the working classes don't have a voice but that they could have a voice if they wanted one.

@Mark - totally agree. The shift you're talking about coincides with the Cluetrain observation of movement from traditional markets (one-to-one) to mass markets (one-to-many)and back to internet enabled markets (m2m,121, 12m, etc). But for this to make total sense I think it needs to be put against the ideological background above.

[Simon Collister]

@Eamon - I think while there may be have feudal elements that existed in the West until recently I don;t know if it is the same feudaldism that existed in the pre-modern period.

Your point about the 60s is really interesting - the idea I'm trying to explore is how the internet is opening a post-modern period that extends the traits of modernity further into the individual and virtual. Concepts that we now recognise as 'post-modern' certainly existed in the 1960s..... Hmm. Thanks for stopping by!

[Ian Green]

...but the [white working classes] could have a voice if they wanted one.
Fair enough. How? Who is going to introduce them to this new media. My view is that Web2.0 is a totally Middle Class pursuit.
Sorry - just pissed off with the BBC's White which appears to me to be produced mainly by White, Oxbridge educated, Middle Class men.
Sigh!
Love your posts though

[Mark Hanson]

the working class are taking up the internet in a big way and a lot of the work I do in helping public organisations engage better with working class communities is increasingly moving away from newsletters, brochures, meetings in town halls and onto the web, where it is embraced enthusiastically.

The point about the working class having a voice isn't so much wrapped up in having to be a prolific internet poster, its about having access to influencers who give you a two-way information point and soft access to the system. My Dad worked on the shop floor for 40 years and was never actively involved in politics but through the shop steward he felt plugged into the process. He could offload views, get an interpretation of national issues and get advice.

Now he relies on the TV....