New Media Research Studio

Frost and the Internet Galaxy

In her article, Frost discusses the ability of the Internet to create “a postnational order.” So obviously, our first questions are, what is postnationalism all about, and what exactly does the Internet have to do with all of that? Well, the term isn’t ever really defined in the article, so I looked it up on Wikipedia.

Postnationalism describes the process or trend by which nation states and national identities lose their importance relative to supranational and global entities.

Simple enough–postnationalism is about global identity.

Frost’s whole article seems to be some sort of an extension or analysis of the work of Jurgen Habermas (a name that is undoubtedly familiar to most of you). Habermas is “among the leading exponents of the postnationalist perspective” and believes that postnationlism is necessary for a “just” or “well-ordered” society. He puts forth some conditions that need to be present in order for a postnationalist order to be established. These conditions all basically circulate around the idea of solidarity, which Frost mentions throughout the article using a variety of different terms: “common political culture,” “community,” “shared experience and shared meaning,” “significant connections,” “shared commitment,” “shared norms”–you get the idea. Habermas adds to the discussion by specifically pinpointing “digitized communications and network logic” as factors that play into globalization, another necessary part of the postnationalist order.

In addition to all this, another scholar named Benedict Anderson, who published a study about the origins of nationalism, also provides some compelling reasons why we should consider the Internet in the discussion of postnationalism. He identified “a confluence of historical factors whose ‘crossing’ made it possible to imagine the nation,” including, “the introduction of a new communications technology,” that is, the printing press. Frost likens the Internet to the printing press—they are both examples of

a powerful new medium (arriving) into an environment already experience shifting political, economic, and social ideals (that was) adopted at an unprecedented rate.

These are all pretty compelling reasons to consider the Internet as the harbinger of postnationalism. Frost mirrors Anderson’s study by taking the four factors he established as key to the birth and growth of nationalism and examining whether or not these criteria can be achieved with the Internet.

1. Conceptions of community - Community is pretty similar to the idea of solidarity, and it’s pretty important in this discussion. But Frost isn’t particularly positive about virtual communities. Here, she discusses “the preference for online anonymity,” which impairs the ability to build strong communities. In addition, there isn’t a high level of commitment or investment in online identities; therefore “attachments are likely to remain thin and conditional.” This is all problematic since “commitment and mutual obligation are necessary if social relations are to become politically significant.” Basically, the Internet does not provide the stability needed to establish strong conceptions of community.
2. Systems of meaning – Anderson’s study of nationalism found that one reason it was able to flourish was because gave answers to questions that previously were answered by religion. Whether or not the Internet is capable of doing the same is questionable. Frost calls it out on its “agnosticism in the face of human fatalities.” In addition, the Internet doesn’t have the boundaries necessary to maintain political discourse. When people group together based on shared experiences, this group “breeds politically significant connections.” The Internet, on the other hand, is one big mess of people. This is cool and liberating in a lot of ways, but it lacks cohesion and unity.
3. Political engagement – It’s debatable whether or not the Internet actually allows for more political engagement. But when it comes down to it, it’s not mere participation that matters—it’s the quality of participation. And so far, most evidence points to the fact that the Internet doesn’t foster a lot of quality democratic discussion. And furthermore, Frost writes that it doesn’t meet some basic requirements of a public sphere: accessibility and inclusivity. Also, on the Internet, we tend to form voluntary attachments based on shared interests, which isn’t enough to sustain the burden of political engagement. Political engagement requires something stronger—a sense of obligation and “sustained effort and commitment, and so far there is limited evidence that either governments or the majority of users are interested in making such an intervention.”
4. Social inclusivity – The Internet is a disorderly place. As mentioned before, there is a lack of cohesion; such an entity probably won’t be able to give rise to “a new collective consciousness.” But, in a weird roundabout way, Frost believes there is a way that the exclusivity of the Internet can actually create greater solidarity:

If the impact of new communication and social practices is to extend and deepen the experience of exclusion and disadvantages, this experience may itself become the source of new solidarities

Which leads Frost to make a particularly interesting point in her conclusion: The fact that the Internet doesn’t seem like it can provide satisfactory conditions for a postnationalist order is not because “new political forms or social ideals are unlikely to arise. The problem is that we may be looking for change in the wrong places and with the wrong expectations.”

We keep expecting postnationalism to start with us—the Western world, the rich nations, the English speakers, the ones with the best technology and the most educated people using it. But in reality,

it is the group with limited access, just enough to see what they are missing out on, who may have the most to gain from pioneering new modes of social relations, meaning, and engagement

OLPC

On that note, the readings about the OLPC program are particularly pertinent. The video outlined the program pretty thoroughly, but I’ll briefly recap here.

OLPC was started by Nicholas Negroponte, a computer scientist from MIT. It’s mission is pretty straightforward: make a $100 laptop to distribute to children in developing countries. The laptop runs a Linux (read: open-source) operating system and has wireless networking capabilities that allow children to share a connection from one laptop. It has other features that allow for it to be used in the context of developing countries–it doesn’t require electricity, it can be viewed in the sun or at night, “under a tree” as Negroponte said like 7 times during the interview, etc.

The program has been pretty controversial, as evidenced by our readings. Bill Thompson of the BBC wrote in response to journalist John Dvorak, who believes–as many do–that the program is a waste of funds, that “sending food aid to Africa is a better way to solve the continent’s problems.” Thompson disagrees with Dvorak and makes some pretty convincing points. Thompson tells the story of strikers in the early 1900s who were protesting their wages. They were being paid enough to survive but had nothing to spend for leisure or enrichment. Their slogan: “We want bread, but we want roses, too.” Thompson reappropriates this slogan in the title of his article–”Give me rice, but give me a laptop too.”

Tom Carter then responds to Thompson’s response to Dvorak. He characterizes Thompson as emotional and Dvorak as logical, and aligns himself with Dvorak. He cites the growing poverty in Africa and defends the government’s right to pull out of the OLPC program when the cost of the laptops almost doubled (although I’m not sure Thompson was necessarily saying they didn’t have that right. I’m not even sure that he was condemning them for doing that). Carter maintains that “my computer is a luxury and not a right. This luxury does not supersede necessities like food and shelter.”

I’ve been back and forth about OLPC since I first heard about it a few years ago, but now I think I agree most with Thompson. Negroponte made a good argument when he pointed out that if you were to exchange the word “laptop” for “education,” no one would disagree. While Carter might be right that a computer is a luxury, I think most reasonable people would agree that education is not; it’s a right. And Frost’s point about developing nations is compelling. It makes sense. We’ve had the Internet here for more than ten years now, and yeah, we’ve been done some cool stuff with it, but who’s to say that’s all there is to it? There’s got to be more than LOLCats and YouTube, so why don’t we give someone else the opportunity to try?

But then I hear about stuff like this and it makes me question everything all over again.