Today's citizen is not only skeptical and anti-hierarchal, she is also what Schudson calls 'monitorial': scanning all kinds of news and information sources for the topics that matter to her personally. People are not necessarily disengaged from the political process -- they just commit their time and energy to it on their own terms. This individualized act of citizenship can be compared to the act of the consumer, browsing the stores of the shopping mall for the perfect pair of jeans -- it is the act of the citizen-consumer. (2007, p.29)The result is a decline in voting and other democratic activity.
But then you listen to National Public Radio and people argue that candidates and pundits do not give the 'people' enough credit. That we care, we are listening, and we will vote. We love our communities. Volunteerism is up.
Which is right? And, what role do new technologies play in making us be more of one or the other?
7 comments:
I don't think that the disengagement from the political process is in direct contrast to this love for the community and volunteerism, though it does speak volumes for how people view the government in relation to their communities.
I think people see the act of volunteering for their community as a very personal act, something that can better their own families, or at the very least better their own personal standing in the neighborhood. There’s nothing litigious or bureaucratic about this type of contribution, unlike political involvement.
As for citizens scanning media for only that which they can relate to, I think that is pretty natural for us to do. We can look at evidence of this in marketing research methods, where they are tirelessly trying to pinpoint an individual’s habits for the sake of efficient commerce. Personally when I go outside of my own bounds and search for something that I normally wouldn’t, I approach it with a higher degree of skepticism of the person who contributed to the piece than if I’m reading a more familiar viewpoint. This can be quite exhausting for the reader, so we avoid it.
I do have a question to pose about this. How could the new media allow us to go outside the bounds of individualism to more of a community forum? The blog format does not cater to a group audience and an opinion formulated via a discussion, our discussion on personal branding could provide evidence for this. Is it ok to accept that we are existing as both community oriented and individualized consumers of media? Perhaps also there is an effect of a this being a highly polarized political world, where some people’s opinions are so vastly different that we just don’t want to confront it face to face.
First, those on NPR are probably much more likely to politically engaged than the average citizen. They are caring, listening, and voting- but so many others are not. So I do not believe the views on NPR are representative.
I disagree that new technologies can be blamed or partly blamed for declines in voting and other democratic activity. Technology can and do make some types of political activity more convenient and effective. For instance, online petitions allow me to be more active than I would be otherwise. Additionally, recently, Dr. Shah presented a study in 901-Mass Comm Colloquium related to this topic. His findings support the idea that new technology helps us to be more politically engaged.
It is right to complicate the discussion a bit, and also to point out that technology is merely a tool.
Deuze's point is not so much that technology is to blame, but rather, that the ubiquitous nature of media in every single aspect of our lives has meant an interconnectedness to all of parts of being. So he relates political activity with consumerism with individualism, for example. The result of this new 'liquid life' as he puts it (the situation where our life components fuse into one another) is that civic engagement becomes consumer oriented and narcissistic. And the result of THIS could be a loss of signification for what were once disparate concepts.
So while I think it is true that technology can be used to revive some specific forms of political participation, I think we also need to be aware of how it has also served as a catalyst for certain aspects of our culture.
I agree that technology has enabled a sort of "individualized citizen”, although I'm not so certain new technologies and media have resulted in declining political participation. Technology has many good sides which we all take advantage of every day. We do have access to more information, but it has also become easier to ignore what we aren't interested in; just change the channel, go to a different website, switch the radio station. This wasn't so easy for our parents and grandparents. Political information has a lot more competition for people's attentions than it used to.
Also, citizens can create their own communities by interacting with media and don’t necessarily need to participate in their established regional or national communities. The people who call into npr represent a community that cares about political issues. The fantasy football website or netflix represent different interests. New technology and media allows us to easily be part of more than one community, but still distracts us from old fashioned civic involvement of attending city council meetings, protests, lectures, or speeches. Now there is the feeling that all the information and involvement we need in the community can be satisfied from home.
I think technology has presented an interesting dichotomy: on one hand it has allowed an expansive exchange of information and networking opportunities, theoretically greatly increasing our knowledge by allowing us to gather almost unlimited amounts of information; on the other, it has allowed for 'mass customization' and data mining on the side of the producer, and keyword searching and skipping through what doesn't interest us on the consumer side.
I think this has made it easier for people to narrow the range of information they consume, while at the same time 'specialize,' by penetrating deeper into a subject and connecting with people like them.
It's a strange relationship between being, as Deuze puts it, "individual-centric," and inter-connected.
As far as how that affects volunteering and voting, I'm not sure. But, like Deuze, I don't think it has make people disengaged - it very well may do the opposite.
I think the main point to take away from the idea of a 'translocal culture' is that our range of access is much broader and immediate than ever before, and its up to the citizens to use it in a constructive way, to enable democracy rather than hinder it.
I also agree that citizen participation has become individualized. Although some people think of this as appropriate, even healthy, for a democracy, I think it has become individualized to such a great extent that the effects have become negative. It’s one thing for individuals to make their own decisions and hold their own opinions, but when one becomes too invested in his or her own interests and views, it leads to a lack of caring for the greater society. This, in turn, makes people less likely to engage in civic activities that are important for society as a whole. I’m not sure I agree with Deuze’s comment that “people are not necessarily disengaged from the political process.” I think they have become that way. When they do take action, it is to address a concern important to them in hopes of bettering their own lives. I’m not saying people have lost any sense of compassion for others, but I believe that technology’s individualized nature sends people heading in that direction.
I disagree with the news sources that say it is the fault of politicians that people aren’t voting. Much of the reason that the media presents it this way can be explained in the reading by Gans. I think the media, in trying to “restore order” (Gans, 55), deliberately seek out evidence of the building up of an “altruistic democracy” (Gans, 40). Perhaps journalists fear the obvious decline of voting due to new technology and have aimed to find stories that can convince Americans that there is still hope to maintain a society based on community and composed of individuals that believe in the “democratic ideal…of the rural town meeting” (44). Maybe the media is trying to deny that individualism is taking over and that this sense of national unity isn't decreasing.
In short, I believe new technology has individualized Americans too much, and that despite attempts by the media to blame politicians and romanticize the vision of an altruistic democracy, the blame rests on individual citizens and their desire to cater political and social action to themselves. - Elli
It's no surprise, according to Schudson, that citizens consume more news and information today and do so more for their own purposes.
The Internet and satellite television have expanded the array of sources. Advertisers also cater to people who buy high-speed Internet and high-definition TVs with satellite channels including several news networks. With all this available, why wouldn't people zero in on what is most important to them?
Further, Gans points out that the news infers enduring values that trace back to the Founding Fathers, who framed the government around freedom and self-interest.
Lule talks about news and myth that also looks at certain institutions such as democracy and capitalism as sacred cows that promote individual choice.
At the same time, Gans discussed how values such as country, community, honesty in business and government, and a free but fair marketplace tend to persist. News stories are often framed from the values of sense of duty,right and wrong, or political and economic freedom. It's on this basis that people will take individual stances on issues and become active in their communities for their own benefits or for the good of everyone involved.
Gans also argues that news favors elite individuals and institutions but that journalists tend to write from a progressive or reformist belief system centered on grass roots activism.
These arguments taken together, however, are ambiguous. The news reproduces the status quo, social order and stability. Progressive ideals, however, are virtually absent because of a persisting value in promoting and helping the business community for the good of the whole. Progressivism is about fair taxation, efficient government, free public education, and the citizen processes of petition, referendum, and recall designed to correct dishonesty or corruption. Today's political climate employs myths, as Lule might say, that business knows what's right and those who struggle somehow deserve their fate. Governments give tax breaks to business to increase the tax base to pay for services, resulting in a net loss of revenue. School levy limit referenda have trouble getting approval because of the regressivity of the property tax. Yet solutions to the revenue shortfalls have been lottery tax credits or removing sales tax exemptions, measures that hurt the working class more than anyone else.
If businesses chose locations based on community, then the tax money given away to attract them could improve roads, schools, and health care for the benefit of owner and employee alike. Under a Progressive system, taxes would be raised on the ability to pay and spent wisely. There would also be no endless bickering over property taxes or tuition because public dollars would pay for education.
The only good that comes from reproduction of the status quo is people using the news and information at their fingertips to either become active for their own interests, either for stability or social change, or limit their participation to local neighborhood causes where people may feel they have more of a hand in the results. Perhaps the only way we'll see sustained increases in voting and civic activity is when the Progressive ideals take a firmer hold in media and are not mere inferences in news content.
Post a Comment