Dystopians

1.2.1 Access: Digital inequality

Any assessment of the impact of the Internet must begin with considerations of access.

Digital divide is a keyword in the lexicon of the dystopians. Given the exiting digital divide there are good grounds to be sceptical about the Internet’s potential for democratic

participation. The dystopians contend that as commercializing trends sweep the Internet, large segments of the population will fall outside the parameters of the information society.

Under the compact of commercial Internet logic the gap between the so-called

“information haves” and “have-nots” is widening. This division between information-rich and information-poor is argued to be a hindrance to a more democratic architecture of political power. The strongest claim of the dystopians is that the familiar socioeconomic biases will be reflected in the Internet. Dystopians have pointed to the fact that the Internet has been the historic preserve of an elite stratum, that is, for the most part, white, male and professional. As such, its potential to deliver a socially inclusive mechanism for communicative exchange is severely circumscribed. Following this line of argumentation, they argue that even if access gradually widens to reach the electronically disadvantaged, the gap between the electronically literate and illiterate seems unlikely to disappear.

According to the proponents of this view, the lack of universal access is identified as the source of structural inequality (Loader, 1997; Van Dijk, 2000). The use of the Internet is likely to widen the scope of the digital divide and reinforce existing differences in the use of Internet technologies. Therefore they will reinforce the dominance of polarisation in terms of the network access between those who have access and those who do not. This new configuration of power relations is held to be crystallizing as the ‘the information rich and poor’ division. They base their arguments on the existing uneven level of access to the Internet and the fact that large segments of the population are not wired. Digitally poor people are structurally denied access because of their rampant illiteracy in terms of the new technical literacy. The dystopians conclude that if the existing uneven levels of access persist and people are systematically denied access, the claim about the positive influence of the Internet in transforming the weak representative democracy into a strong digital democracy deserves a thorough re-examination.

A group of dystopian scholars regard the Internet as a Pandora’s Box unleashing new inequalities of power, reinforcing deeper divisions among information-rich and –poor individual and groups, because telecommunications infrastructures and Internet access are driven more by profits and less by the needs of people and communities. For them universal access to the Internet sounds good, but it is expensive, and questions of how it will be funded are yet to be resolved. Furthermore, access is not just a matter of telecommunications equipment; it is also a question of media literacy and computer skills.

What the evidence actually suggests is that the much-heralded potential of the Internet to

deliver a medium of inclusive public deliberation remains, for the time being at least, seriously open to question.

1.2.2 Information overload

The accessibility does not necessarily mean that problems related to the growing popular disenchantment with existing forms of democracy will be solved. Arguing that the solution lies in granting people easy and efficient access to the information is incomplete. Closely linked to this first hurdle is a second– known as the “information overload” issue -, which has further heightened the debate. The Internet will flood people with a huge amount of information. The overabundance of information does not guarantee an informed and responsible citizen, because it has become difficult for citizens to distinguish between the

“legitimate from the illegitimate” (Shenk, 1997). Quite the contrary, it has caused what David Shenk describes as data smog (Shenk, 1997). He regards data smog as the dark reality at the heart of today’s information society (Shenk, 1997: 30-1).

Tim Jordan has distinguished between two types of information overload: that which arises from excess volume, and that arising from information so “chaotically organized” as to be useless (1999: 118). Jordan concludes that the information overload results in a “spiral” that will reproduce the existing power relations of the Internet (Jordan, 1999: 128).

On this reading, the Internet and by providing a sheer quantity of information is a boon to democracy; rather it is inimical to participation. It has rather complicated the matter to the extent that citizens are discouraged to participate. People plagued with an information avalanche, such as data and news can be easily forced into political irrelevancies. It was argued that the burgeoning flows of data and information that computers have made possible are serving primarly to numb people with a glut of unnecessary and often inaccurate information.

The quantity of information is not necessarily in the interest of democracy, for information is simply not a sufficient condition to declare the existence of democratic participation. What makes information relevant for political participation is the quality of this information. Thus attention should not be put on the sheer amount of information provided by the use of the Internet, but on the relevance and the needs of the citizens to

this particular information. The future of informed and participatory democracy in the information age is far from rosy. For Shenk information overload serves only to strengthen existing relation of relation power (Shenk, 1997: 15).

The dystopians conclude that even the easy access to governmental records and forms could not increase citizen’s knowledge of what governments really propose. They are sceptical about the prediction advanced by neofuturists that the day is fast approaching when the enlightened citizenry will be finally realized.

1.2.3 Atomisation of the community

The dystopians focus their attention primarily on the negative aspects of the Internet regarding online communities and question whether growing numbers of people will seek new forms of community. One consequence of these community networks is the gradual fragmentation of society into narrow and specialised interest groups. Sunstein (2001) argues that the Internet may create a high degree of social fragmentation (balkanisation), group polarisation and local cascades, which may produce severe risks for democracy.

The multiplication of inherently limited virtual communities is likely to disrupt the social basis of political life. Virtual communities based on the voluntary association of like-minded people do not have any degree of permanence of traditional communities based on families and face-to-face neighbours. Consequently they are volatile since members can freely get in and out of virtual communities in cyberspace. For some scholars, these Internet technologies are labelled as technologies of individuation, for they contribute to the disconnection of individuals from their social being and thus further underline the meaningful sense of togetherness.

The Internet further isolates and disaffects individuals from their communities. It distracts people from social problems and collective-action remedies by giving them a false sense of political effectiveness. Bonds that are defined along professional and recreational lines have been increasingly seen as unvalued. As virtual communities grow more powerful, some fear that common bond will be increasingly de-emphasised and will be replaced by network communities coalesced around narrow interests.

1.2.4 Weakening of democracy

Dystopians suggest that ICTs will weaken, not reinvigorate democracy. From that more sceptical perspective, dystopians find the plebiscitary democracy enacted in push-button democracy wanting. The strongest claim advanced by dystopians is that the simple head-counting democracy runs the risk of segmenting people into smaller and smaller groups and factions in the same way mass media is dividing audiences by narrowcasting messages. Dystopians argue that the essential conditions for strong democratic life such as community, access to the public sphere and reasonable amount of information are deteriorating due to the use of the Internet. Democrat y is dangerously menaced by the intensive and continuous state control and surveillance. Dystopians express fear and anxiety that the “Pandora scenario” will prevail.

The big question posed by the dystopians is that the digitalisation of political and social life will not improve the quality of democracy rather it will damage deliberation, debate and the quality of public sphere. In fact, dystopians argue that the neofuturist’s prediction of a utopian democracy through the intensive use of ICTs is not only unworkable but also dangerous.

ICTs are identified as technologies of control and surveillance. According to this line of dyspotian thinking, technological advance is closely linked to more centralized control. On this reading, the ICTs are better regarded as crucial facilitators of controlling, monitoring and supervising (Wright, 1998). The recent adoption of the ICTs in the public administrations is not designed to empower citizens and enable governments to interface with their citizenry, as the neofuturists argue; rather it is to strengthen the power of civil servants. Dystopians fear from what they prefer to call a Cyborg or the rise of the surveillance state.