The
public sphere is the space in which communication takes place of various ideas
and opinions. These ideas and opinions emerge from the society and articulated
to the policy makers of the state. A global civil society is the communication
of these interests, ideas and opinions of the society (Castells, 2008).
Obviously,
the advancement of technology gave power to the means of communication of a
global civil society and created the information society. In the past, media
scholars have asked the question as to how much benefit would the civil society
achieve from the global information society (Calabrese, 2004)? The society has
clearly benefitted from the information technology. Information can be
instantly delivered to large populations, connecting people through computer
networks. This created a globalized world (Castells, 2008; Kahn & Kellner,
2007).
Moreover,
computer technology has also become a crucial mediator for communicating
policies,ideas and opinions in a political sphere. It is not just for the politicians but also for the civil society and other
organizations to express their opinions and thoughts regarding the current issues or recent changes in policies. For example, computerized voting machines are important tools
used to gain state authority by competing groups in an election (Kahn & Kellner, 2007). At
the same time, international organizations such as Third World Network (find out more) are
able to develop alliances and informative power through their websites
to influence the state’s policies (Kahn & Kellner, 2007).
Furthermore,
Melluci (1985) has mentioned that social movements seek to make society hear
their messages and transform them in to political decision-making. The global
movement for communication rights engages in practice of civil disobedience,
street protests and using politics of shame to pressurize governments
(Calabrese, 2004). For example in May 2009, a video surfaced the Internet in
which renowned lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg blamed the Gautemalan president Alvaro
Colom for murdering him. This has caused massive outrage among the citizens
that initiated Facebook pages and Twitter for Colom’s resignation that soon
prompted a street protest from just an online movement (Harlow, 2012).
In addition, the current global movement for
communication rights aims to provide universal principles of social justice at
all scales (Calabrese, 2004). Although information and communication
technologies are advantageous to a democratic society, there may be struggles
as well. One of the most talked about topic for such a struggle is the digital
divide (find out more).
However, the society is slowly overcoming such a problem. The following Youtube video explains what the digital divide is and how it may be overcome.
Likewise,
organizations such as Freepress (find out more) portray an example
of how people are joining a movement to make media a better place to build a healthier
democracy (Calabrese, 2004). It is not solely the greedy interests of other
institutions that influence the global movement for communication rights but
rather for social justice in this global civil society.
Furthermore, the World Summit on Information
Society (WSIS) has discussed issues relating to the communication rights of the
civil society. The intention is to provide a stronger democratic global civil
society to provide social justice. Since its inception, the WSIS has dealt with
many issues and policies regarding the information society (Calabrese, 2004).
The current WSIS 2013 has discussed the need for constant securing of cyberspace due to
emerging threats. Other advances where providing smart climate monitoring
information and communication technologies so that global citizens are better
prepared for natural disasters (WSIS, 2012).
In
conclusion, I believe that communication rights are essential to the civil
society. Communication has the power and potential to shape the future for a
stronger democratic global civil society. However, the important question we
should be asking is to what extend does the voice of the civil society reach
over the powerful and selfish organizations to voice out their needs and rights? It is
really a matter of who represents the civil society in a communication rights
policy-making movement such as the WSIS. This will ensure a smooth, struggle free environment for the global civil society in the long run.
List of References
Calabrese,
A. (2004). The Promise of Civil Society: a Global Movement for Communication
Rights. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 18 (3):
317-329. Retrieved August 16, 2013 from IngentaConnect Journals.
Castells,
M. (2008). The new public sphere: Global civil society, communication networks,
and global governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 616(1), 78-93.
Harlow,
S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan
justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2),
225-243.
Kahn,
R., & Kellner, D. (2007). Resisting globalization. In The Blackwell Companion to
Globalization, 662-674.
Melluci, A. (1985). The
symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. Social Research, 52, 789-816.
World Summit on the Information Society. (2012). WSIS Forum
2013.
Retrieved
August 19, 2013, from http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/documents/outcomes.html
Yes, I agree whole heartedly that communication rights are essential to the civil society, but as you mentioned, how far are we able to make our voices heard beyond the corporate giants that silence us? If our reporters and journalists are unable to achieve press freedom, then I have limited hope for the ability of society in general to plea their right to communication.
ReplyDeleteWith the use of De Fleur and Ball Rockeach (1989) media dependency theory it can be seen that – “in order to live in a society –individuals, groups and organisations seeking to reach their personal or collective objectives, are left to make use of resources that other people, groups, or organisations control, and vice versa.” (De Fleur, M.L. and Ball-Rokeach, S. (1989)
Theories of Mass Communication,Longman, New York)
The way I see it, we will always be dependent on corporate giants in order for us to have the right to communication, so honestly we will never have the ability to make our voices heard above them no matter who represents society at a policy making movement, as we are just a statistic in a democratic society, but hey that is just my opinion.
To add on to Alicia's comments on how we all always have to depend on corporate giants to have the right to communication, look at how Mark Zuckerberg is calling for free basic internet access as a human right; he is trying to make telcos to produce cheaper data and provide access to basic internet services.
ReplyDelete(read; http://www.siliconrepublic.com/comms/item/33882-facebook-ceo-zuckerberg/)
But is is not possible that the internet enables individuals to communicate on a much wider scale, as well as NGOs and other members of civil society?
ReplyDeletePolicies are in place to limit the power of corporations, and although they are not always effective it is worth considering what the state of affairs could be if there was no such legislation at all.
Interesting that about Zuckerberg - of course it shouldn't be overlooked that Facebook benefits directly from increased internet use.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@julian the way I see it - it is a win-win situation!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAre Chinese citizens part of this global civil society? Who represent their voice? What communication rights they have?
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese government has long tried to keep a tight rein on traditional and new media to prevent any challenges to its political authority.
The country is ranked 174 out of 179 countries in the 2012 worldwide index of press freedom.
Journalist face harassment and prison terms for violating rules laid down by the government and are therefore pressured into "self-censorship".
In my opinion, i think it would be much less interesting without censorship. Trying to find possibilities to overcome or bypass such difficulties can make life more interesting. In the end of the day, I believe the internet is uncontrollable, and since it is uncontrollable, freedom will win.
@Alvin
ReplyDeleteCommunication rights (in a legal sense) are determined in the first instance by the nation-state. Though one can also argue from a broader philosophical angle - i.e. maybe Chinese *should* have more rights.
The debate about the internet is ongoing, but some might say that China is doing a good job at showing that the internet *is* controllable.
Hi - thanks for this, I've emailed the valuation to you.
ReplyDelete