“It’s The Network, Stupid.”

The Internet has had remarkable impacts upon the American political landscape. No longer are political parties relying upon church lists and associates’ Rolodexes to reach potential voters – now campaigns are recruiting and connecting with the public through YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. The role of the Internet in political campaigning first emerged most visibly with the Dean campaign in 2004, which used the social networking site Meetup.com to organize house parties and coalitions across the country, and reached maturity with the new media juggernaut that was the Obama campaign in 2008. The following readings examine just how profound the influence of the Internet has been in politics, and whether we are attributing too much to technology.


+Lim & Kann, “Politics: Deliberation Mobilization, and Networked Practices of Agitation”

Themes: the Internet as a democratizing force; the network as an equalizer of the public sphere; and the Internet as a method for engagement. The authors raise questions about whether or not the Internet has “structurally alter[ed] the political process” or if it is just another manifestation of traditional political activities. They argue that the network is rather a “convivial medium” that “favors freedom, autonomy, equality, and creative collaboration”, which lends itself to democracy but is not inherently a democratizing force. After all, terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda also use the Internet for message dissemination, public engagement, and organization.

These themes suggest, and the authors argue, that technology is not in and of itself a causal agent of social change. It can facilitate change, and be used as a tool by activists, but the change itself must originate elsewhere. The authors discuss three ways in which the Internet is involved in politics: online deliberation, online mobilization, and blogging and remix. Online deliberation needs rules in order to facilitate discussion, and these rules translate into barriers to entry, which inevitably restrict the freedom of access granted by the Internet in the first place. These forums also tend to mimic offline deliberation forums, which suggest that the Internet is not in fact creating new spheres for deliberation; indeed, the authors point out that online deliberation forums cannot contest the ruling elites, which is further evidence that the same forces restricting offline deliberation also restrict the power of the Internet. Online mobilization has been more successful, with the examples of the Zapatistas in Mexico and the “Free Burma” movement. The Internet allows activists to mobilize and frame the message according to their own terms, rather than those cast upon them by traditional media. The low cost and high impact of online mobilization, such as the ability to send out a million emails, further facilitates mobilization in a way not seen by more traditional forms of organizing. Regardless, these activities are still imitations of offline methods of engagement, such as petitions.

Blogging and remix, the authors argue, fall into another category. They are neither deliberative nor mobilizing, and straddle the area between private and public. Blogs may not be a good indicator of democratizing influence, though, because they have an unequal distribution of readers and tend to be ideologically polarized. Additionally, blogs tend to resemble the “old media” – for example, the top blogs include traditional media giants such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Associated Press. Remix is also something of a fuzzy area in regard to democratization. It is not a new form of expression, but there is some evidence that remix suggests active engagement: authors of remix are not just passive consumers of information, but rather producers and distributors of it.


+Megan Boler, interview with Geert Lovink in Digital Media and Democracy

Themes: Technology is not a driver of social change; scalability of issues through networks; networks as a way for people to be a part of a rising movement; structure of networks dictate functionality

This interview focused a lot on the causes of social change; namely, that these causes are rooted somewhere deeper in our collective consciousness, regardless of the presence or use of technology. The network allows for paradoxes and loose affiliations that are more consistent with human thinking and behavior, but are not generally supported by traditional political and media structures. Activists should concern themselves with the structure of technology and build connections with the IT professionals that develop it, because applications of technology are limited by its design. To that end, Lovink encourages the development of new networks and structures, possibly through open-source architecture, that will allow a more full range of applications.

+Talbot, “How Obama REALLY Did It”

Themes: Effective use of social organizing tools; integration of traditional political activities with Internet applications; new media as a strategy

Talbot outlined how Obama’s approach to new media differed from his competitors in that he fully integrated it into his overall political strategy – in fact, Obama was the only campaign to have a new media director and office with a dedicated place at the strategy table. Additionally, the Obama campaign successfully linked online activism, through such tools as MyBO, to more traditional political activities that people could do from home, such as phone banking and get-out-the-vote efforts. Obama’s approach differed from Clinton’s top-down strategy in that the campaign gave more power to the grassroots to organize, but yet maintained a central office for collaboration and organization. The campaign did not limit itself to just the Internet, but utilized functions such as SMS texting to maximize the impact on the public. The word used repeatedly in the article was “relationships”, emphasizing that for the Obama campaign, the social media applications were not just about one-to-many message dissemination, but a true collaboration between the campaign and supporters.

+Questions:

+Has the Internet changed the time-worn political axiom, “All politics is local?” For example, the out-of-state involvement in Proposition 8 in California, foreigners changing their Twitter and Facebook locations to Tehran in support of Iranian protestors

+To what extent is Lovink right, that structure dictates functionality? May this explain why online political activism looks like offline political activism? Or is that a function of human behavior sticking with what’s familiar?

+Talbot’s article made the point that Obama’s campaign had set up certain expectations with its use of social media. This is suggestive of the “permanent campaign” – do these new media applications increase the public's expectations, thereby making permanent campaign harder to achieve without losing credibility, or just more visible?

+Has the Internet altered the way politics is carried out, or is it just a new medium for the same activities? Has it changed how we think of credibility, visibility, accountability?

+How can campaigns translate online support into offline action? Is there a limit to the power of the Internet if the momentum never leaves the Web?

+Is the Internet a force for democratization?


Links:
Permanent Campaign

Iran’s Twitter Revolution:
The Nation
CS Monitor

“Cyberwar” Guide for helping Iranian protestors

Out-of-state Money and Prop 8

George Allen failing to understand the Internet


Ted Stevens “Series of Tubes” remix