Critical Mass

"Critical Mass – The Internet's role in societal (dis)integration."

Quote – “See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially.” Thus reads the back cover of Cass Sunstein’s ‘republic.com’, a book that raises and discusses troubling questions about the effect of the Internet on democratic society. Sunstein asks us, and himself, if unlimited power to filter is ‘good for democracy and for the republic’. I will look at some troubling aspects of ‘democracy’, ‘republic’ and ‘civil society’ later but first let’s use Sunstein’s summary to see in some detail the dangers he sees. I quote at length here:
“First, a communications system granting individuals an unlimited power to filter threatens to create excessive fragmentation. It would do this if different individuals and groups, defined in demographic, religious, political or other terms, choose material and viewpoints that fit in with their own predilections, while excluding topics and viewpoints that do not. That would undoubtedly produce a more balkanized society. The danger is greatly heightened by the phenomenon of group polarization, through which deliberating groups move toward a more extreme point in the same direction indicated by their predeliberation judgments.”
“Second, a system of unlimited filtering could produce too little in the way of shared information and experiences. When many or most people are focussing on the same topic, at least some of the time, a system of freedom creates a kind of social glue. The point is all the more important in light of the fact that information is a public good – a good whose benefits are likely to spread well beyond the particular person who receives it.”
“Third, a system of unlimited filtering might well compromise freedom, understood from the democratic point of view. For citizens in a republic, freedom requires exposure to a diverse set of topics and opinions.” (Sunstein, 2001 198-200)
All this assumes that unlimited filtering could become a reality, a position which I see as extremely unlikely to happen, except for a very small number of people, if any. Sunstein’s hypothetical filterer would need to live in a hermetically-sealed world, with no radio and t.v., no company, no visits to the bar, shop, or café, no trips to the barber, no pontificating taxi drivers, no overheard conversations on the bus etc. In short, we are all very frequently exposed to other people’s opinions whether we like it or not. Cyberspace may be a nice place to visit but nobody lives there yet. Nevertheless, for Sunstein the Internet is the tool which could bring about the filtering he fears and its subsequent negative effects on democracy and the republic. Given his many references to the Constitution of the United States and to the ancient Greek forum, ‘republic’ here should be understood in both a literal and metaphorical sense.
Where Sunstein foresees the fragmentation of society into a collection of non-interacting individuals, I wish to emphasise an alternate scenario; one where a ubiquitous, reasonably cheap technology can encourage mass (and massive) social action and help enable the creation of well-informed social groups and thus to more democratic, social and political participation in everyday life.
In order to do this let’s go back a moment to civil society, another expression I mentioned a little earlier, one not mentioned by Sunstein but crucial to Mary Kaldor’s thesis in ‘Global Civic Society – An Answer to War’ (Polity, 2003). She begins by summarising the ancient origins of the expression. She says that there was always a common core of meaning in the literature that civil society was associated with a rule-governed society based on public consent rather than coercion. But… quote –
“What is new about the concept of civil society since 1989 is globalization. Civil society is no longer confined to the border of the territorial state.” Kaldor (p.1).
she continues…
“The end of the Cold War and growing global interconnectedness have undermined the territorial distinction between 'civil' and 'uncivil' societies, between the 'democratic' West and the 'non democratic' East and South… and these developments, in turn, have opened up new possibilities for political emancipation as well as new risks and greater insecurity…”
“…what has changed are the opportunities for linking up with other like minded groups in different parts of the world, and for addressing demands not just to the state but to global institutions and other states. On the one hand, global civil society is in the process of helping to constitute and being constituted by a global system of rules, underpinned by overlapping inter governmental, governmental and global authorities. In other words, a new form of politics, which we call civil society, is both an outcome and an agent of global interconnectedness. And on the other hand, new forms of violence, which restrict, suppress and assault civil society, also spill over borders so that it is no longer possible to contain war or lawlessness territorially.” (Kaldor p.2)
She goes on…
“It is no longer possible to insulate territory from anarchy and disorder. In place of vertical territorial based forms of civil society, we are witnessing the emergence of horizontal transnational global networks, both civil and uncivil. What one might call zones of civility and zones of incivility exist side by side in the same territorial space; North Atlantic space may have more extensive zones of civility than other parts of the world but such sharp geographic distinctions can no longer be drawn. The events of September 11 were a traumatic expression of the fact that territorial borders no longer define the zones of civility. In other words, the territorial restructuring of social, economic and political relations has profound implications for how we think about civil society.” (Kaldor, p.6)
Kaldor sums up her position here by saying that discussions about global civil society have to be understood as a movement away from state-centred approaches, with more concern for individual empowerment and personal autonomy.
She also discusses ‘global civil society’ from 5 different perspectives – societas civilis, Bourgeois society, the neoliberal version, the postmodern version and most importantly for this paper, the activist version. This last version “presupposes a state or rule of law but insists not only on restraints on state power but also on a redistribution of power. It is a radicalisation of democracy and an extension of participation and autonomy. On this definition, civil society refers to active citizenship, to growing self-organization outside formal political circles, and expanded space in which individual citizens can influence the conditions in which they live both directly through self-organisation and through political pressure.” (Kaldor p.8)
This last, key, paragraph gives us the terms ‘civil society’ ‘active citizenship’, ‘growing self-organization’ ‘expanded space’ ‘self-organisation’ ‘political pressure’, but does not mention how it all works. How is the potential converted into the real? Saskia Sassen, in her ‘Countergeography of Globalisation’ pulls all the threads together.
“Through the Internet, local initiatives become part of a global network of activism without losing the focus on specific local struggles. It enables a new type of cross-border political activism, one centered in multiple localities yet intensely connected digitally. Activists can develop networks for circulating not only information (about environmental, housing, political issues etc.) but also political work and strategies.”
“This is one of the key forms of critical politics that the Internet can make possible: a politics of the local with a big difference – these are localities that are connected with each other across a region, a country or the world. Because the network is global does not mean that it all has to happen at the global level.”
“The demonstrations by the anti-globalization network have signaled the potential for developing a politics centered on places understood as locations on global networks. This is a place-specific politics with global span. It is a type of political work deeply embedded in people’s actions and activities but made possible partly by the existence of global digital linkages.” – end quote.
What kind of international politics are conducted by non-state civil society actors? How is the Internet, or more broadly speaking, the ICTs (information and communication technologies) enabling a more responsible, influential citizenry to achieve a more democratic and egalitarian society? I would like to mention here a small but representative selection of organisations some of whom act globally and others locally, although as we have seen, this is not an easy distinction to draw.
The Participative Budget of Porto Alegre, and Rubí.
“The participative budget is not just an exercise in the distribution of municipal income and expenditure by the people themselves. The metropolitan area of the city has a population of 1.3 million in a conurbation of 3.3 million, so the scale of the operation, combined with the rigorous and progressive way in which it is conducted, make it an experiment in direct democracy unlike any other anywhere in the world.” Well, a smaller-scale example took place and continues to take place in Catalonia, in the municipality of Rubí. The local council there has followed the Brazilian example and also set up many other participative initiatives, including the City Strategic Plan, The Rubí Children’s Council and the Environmental Audit and the Environmental Forum and the Urban Improvement Work Service. All these initiatives were based on the idea of full consultation with the public and with no action taken until the public had received the maximum information, had time to discuss it, deliberate upon it and then finally decide on it. At this point, and at this point only, the elected officials convert the wishes of the citizens into reality. “The substantial difference between Rubí's model of a Participative Budget and that of Porto Alegre is that in the case of Rubí the whole process (from the methodology, regulations, territorial distribution, voting system, etc.) was carried out with the consensus of the inhabitants.” (Núria Buenaventura, 2003)
Other local initiatives set up in Catalonia recently, and developed by the Catalan Institute of Technology and the Jaume Bofill Foundation, together with 10 other town halls in Catalonia, include the following:
“Consensus contributes a space for reinforcing and deepening democracy, one with a double challenge: the application of an experience of direct democracy, such as the participative budget, through the net.” (Núria Buenaventura, 2003)
“The principal objective of the Consensus project has been the development of an interactive tool, an "Internet citizen consultation kit". Consensus is an open, virtual space, administered by the town halls, which puts information, citizen participation and consultation in matters of public interest in the municipal ambit.” (Pilar Dellunde 2003)
A second important experience has been democraciaweb, also promoted by the Jaume Bofill Foundation, which is a “portal is a space for debate and participation on matters of discussion in the Parliament of Catalonia and its aim is to build a new communication bridge between the citizens and their political representatives.” (Pilar Dellunde, 2003).
Pilar Dellunde goes on to say that we should see the Internet as a universal public service. She says that in terms of both budget and technology it is possible now to provide broadband Internet access to the whole of the Catalan population (946 municipalities) for the price of 50 to 60 kms of motorway. (Dellunde, 2003). One important observation she makes is that one should see the people network rather than the fibre optic network as the highest priority. It is important to make sure that the ‘digital divide’ is avoided and that all people, regardless of mental, physical or sensory handicaps are included. She insists that it is also important to avoid the ‘gender digital divide’: women account for more than 40% of the internaut community in Catalonia, but there are many degree and diploma courses in which their presence doesn’t even reach 10%. They do not participate in the production and creation of the technology they use.

Moving to the global level I’d like to mention some examples of the different fields of interest of some big players.

Move On – http://www.moveon.org
More than 2 million online activists, working to bring ordinary people back to politics. One of the reasons democracy is under threat is the lack of faith that people have in the present system. When representatives don’t represent, the foundations of democracy are in trouble. Move On works by creating electronic advocacy groups. When the organisation becomes aware of divisions between broad public opinion and legislative action it sets up a working group and provides tools and information to enable each individual to have the greatest possible impact.

Association for Progressive Communications (APC) – http://www.apc.org
Their vision – “A world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of ICTs to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies”
Their mission – to empower and support organisations, social movements and individuals in and through the use of information and communication technologies to build strategic communities and initiatives for the purpose of making meaningful contributions to equitable human development, social justice, participatory political processes and environmental sustainability.”

Planetwork - Social Networks: http://www.planetwork.org/
– from their conference material
“…Social network tools… will not only radically increase the ability of millions of people to cooperate and self-organize around shared goals, but they will also enable us to see ourselves as a whole - as a global community that share a commitment to common values. Social network tools will give us a new sense of collective empowerment and political potency as citizens of the planet.”
http://www.smartmobs.com
Smart mobs emerge when communication and computing technologies amplify human talents for cooperation…. The technologies that are beginning to make smart mobs possible are mobile communication devices and pervasive computing - A million Filipinos toppled President Estrada through public demonstrations organized through salvos of text messages…
The above are examples of organisations but here are some examples of individuals acting together to produce real change.
Amina Lawal, condemned to death by stoning in Nigeria – 1.3 million signatures from people who had never met her. Her life was saved by complete strangers.
Prestige – A magnificent public effort to save the coast of Galicia from the inaction and indifference of the Spanish state. Volunteers from all over Spain and other parts of Europe did what the Spanish government seemed reluctant to do, and largely realised by e-mail cybercascades.
Leche Pascual – a short-lived although tremendously effective boycott which had a profound effect on the company’s proposal to stop dairy production in Catalonia.
Not in our name - Encapsulated the expression of rejection of the war and the vindication of another democracy, understood not only as representational. Internet has made it possible to coordinate the mobilisations that have allowed simultaneous joint actions throughout the world, and what is more important, has created referents, and made clear how many people are against the war.

In summary:
Going back to Sunstein’s initial worry about the Internet not being ‘good for democracy’ seems to suggest that he believes that we (or at least the USA) now has a democracy. Some people may dispute this. Many people there are worried about the results of the *last (2004) Presidential election; stolen, some say, by the Republican party. Many people in many other parts of the world are so disillusioned by ‘conventional’ ‘representative’ politics that they no longer participate, or participate in ever-increasing numbers. Millions of people refuse to cast their vote because they believe that nothing could ever change. For millions of people, the impression remains that democracy has changed little since we sent our representatives to parliaments in distant cities by stagecoach.
If a week is a long time in politics, as Harold Wilson once remarked, why is it that the citizens are required to cast their vote only once every four or five years? The Guardian’s web site now allows its British readers to type in their post code and find out how their elected MP has voted on a number of important issues.
We see this as ‘progress’ and fail to see the irony of the situation.
We see the situation where people are critical of what little democracy we have but do not know what alternative there may be.
We see the overwhelming concentration of the ‘general interest’ media in the hands of the media magnates and corporations. And we sit on our hands and do nothing.
But the ICTs offer an opportunity, and I put it no higher than this, an opportunity to rekindle interest in becoming politically active, of citizen participation in matters that effect their daily lives. As Dellunde says, the human aspect is more important than the technological aspect and the mere fact of having broadband Internet access is no guarantee of a more democratic society. It is also necessary to re-educate the citizens, or educate the new citizens, about the fact that the Internet is not only a place to buy cheap flights, send e-mail, download mp3 files, upload your videos and chat with distant friends and relatives: the Internet has the potential to inculcate a sense of responsibility of citizens to their society. As we have seen in the case of Rubí and Porto Alegre, the administrations can encourage (or hinder) their citizens to participate in local political life.
We have seen that things happen, as in the four cases quoted above, when the number of concerned citizens reaches critical mass. I am more interested in the idea of a ‘critical mass’ in the sense of the two words that make up the term.
‘Critical’ in terms of a critical population; a population not afraid to criticise, to express its opinion, its anger and dissatisfaction, with all the certainty of being in full control of the information necessary to express this opinion. A population with the time, information, intellectual ability and sense of political responsibility to influence day to day political life, both globally and locally.
‘Mass’ in terms of massive numbers of groups and individuals, connected to the sources of information and to each other on a daily, rather than a five-yearly basis. A ‘mass’ of people deliberating, debating, communicating and relating to each other on a range of issues. The ICTs may help bring this about.
Sunstein sees the Internet as containing the potential for damaging the republic and democracy: I prefer to see the present political systems as incomplete, outmoded and non-democratic, not yet republics. I see collective action as not only necessary for democracy but also for the individual to ‘become’ human, and for human society thereby to be improved: As Norbert Bolz said, “If mass communication is to have any meaning, then one should first define it as the technical organization of a collective body.” (Lovink II p.21)
Karl Marx referred to this ‘conscious and purposeful transformation of the world in service to meeting human needs’ many times. Gramsci also referred to this ‘complex activity by which individuals, in collectivities, create culture, society, and create themselves as ‘species beings’, i.e., as human beings’, He called it ‘Praxis’, as did Marx. One can only hope that the combination of these ICTs and the growing human capacities for deliberation, consideration and responsibility lead to less, not more fragmentation of society, and more, not less, conviction in the belief that political life is not something that happens in smoke filled rooms in distant cities; it is something that we need as individuals and groups in order to become true citizens, not mere consumers. If we can educate the public to use the ICTs, and make sure they are available to all, then we can still hope that a better, more democratic and egalitarian life is possible. Because, as we all know, ‘Praxis makes perfect’.