Nationalism and the Internet Essay Example

considering more than just online experience and content (Slevin, 2000).

The statement that Internet culture is solely an online phenomenon is unacceptable because it fails to acknowledge the impact of the Internet on offline individuals and societies (Slevin, 2000). This article will examine how the Internet can foster a sense of national or local identity despite its role in globalization. As Hamilakis (2002) suggests, an individual's actions and experiences in cyberspace are influenced by their everyday life experiences. In terms of societal transformation, the Internet can be seen as an example of the silver bullet model theory, which refers to the introduction of disruptive technology that bypasses traditional processes and constraints to create a new order (Rule, 1999).

According to Rule (1999), the movement in the Internet can be described as a land rush model rather than the silver bullet model. This movement is comparable to a stampede, where individuals compete to establish their positions and pursue their traditional interests in this new territory. The Internet, or cyberspace, serves as a platform for disadvantaged actors to express their political, social, and economic interests (Sassen, 2004). Within cyberspace exists virtual power and digital space that has the potential to transform into real power and wealth (Hand and Sandywell, 2002). Castells (2000) argues that our current society is a new society characterized by networks.

Networks have evolved from traditional social organizations to ones built on electronic networks in today's society. This transformation has also impacted the spatial structure of our society. However, Castells (2000) disagrees with the notion that physical space is no longer important. He argues that people's experiences still occur in physical spaces and emphasizes the significance of

physical locations for computers and devices. Wellman and Hampton (1999) support this idea by stating that the network society is not a new concept.

According to Cho, De Zuniga, Rojas, Shah(2003) and Thornton (2001), the digital divide is not just about access to technology, but it also reflects broader social, economic, cultural, and learning inequalities. It is a sociological phenomenon that exacerbates social inequalities. Recent studies suggest that the digital divide between developed countries like the US and others is narrowing (Chen & Wellman, 2004).

The digital divide is growing in both developed and developing countries, as well as within developing countries. The consequences of not having internet access are becoming more severe, while the number of people who can access the internet remains limited. Factors such as education, socioeconomic status, gender, life stage, and geographic location determine whether someone has internet access. Chen & Wellman (2004) argue that these disparities are caused by cyber exclusion, which turns the global community into an exclusive one that excludes certain individuals. As a result of this cyber exclusion, those who are left out face information poverty (Hand & Sandywell, 2002).

The situation is worsened for developing countries because they cannot participate in crucial internet-related matters like cyber-security, intellectual property rights, e-government, and others that impact health, employment, and education (Sadowsky, Zambrano, & Dandjinou, 2004). This lack of participation is caused by a scarcity of financial and human resources (Baird, 2002). Nonetheless, there have been attempts in both developed and developing nations to tackle and reduce the digital divide as observed by Thornton (2001).

Furthermore, according to Thornton (2001), bridging the digital divide is closely related to preserving local identity. However, this

task has proven to be challenging due to various barriers. Evard (2000) points out that implementing electronic information systems remains expensive, with factors such as downloading capability, system complexity, connection line quality, hardware speed, and licensure affecting the overall costliness.

On The Internet

The Internet is a tool used for disseminating information and improving communication. According to Wellman and Hampton (1999), the Internet allows for both asynchronous and real-time communications (Wilbur, 1997) and enables quick forwarding/sending of messages to many recipients. Slevin (2000) argues that attributing the term "new media" solely to the Internet is misleading, as it is closely connected to the broader development of mediated communication. He believes that the Internet goes beyond being a mere alternative for information distribution and communication, as it can contribute to transforming spatial and temporal organization of life. However, there are varying reactions and assumptions regarding the true impact of the Internet on society.

Turkle (1999) argues that Internet users have the ability to create virtual identities that differ from their real selves. These virtual identities can even be multiple at the same time. However, Coget, Yutaka, Yamauchi, and Suman (2002) suggest that being heavily attached to the Internet can lead to individual seclusion by disconnecting them from meaningful face-to-face conversations with neighbors and family. Loader (1997) views the Internet as a tool for exploring ideas of liberation and empowerment, allowing individuals to transcend physical limitations. According to Rule (1999), Cyberspace is seen as a technology that liberates users from social constraints, enabling them to seek information, form relationships, and pursue personal interests without the limitations of institutions. Hand and Sandwell (2002) further exemplify this perspective using the cosmopolitan/citadellian paradigm.

This

paragraph examines the potential influence of the Internet on global society. It argues that although the Internet can empower communities and enhance participation, it is crucial to acknowledge its counteracting forces. These forces, including restrictions on hardware and software ownership, may impede public access to the Internet. Furthermore, there is a belief that the Internet can homogenize culture by promoting Western values. This is apparent in the prevalence of English language usage and Western-produced content online.

Consequently, nation-states face the challenge of preserving national culture and identity while unifying their people (Stratton, 1997; Evard, 2000). This has led countries like Malaysia and Singapore to implement Internet censorship (Evard, 2000). However, Castells (Slevin, 2000) argues that computer networks do not aim to create a homogenizing culture, as they are diverse and consist of different cultures.

On Power Relations, according to Mills (2002), Hand and Sandywell (2002), Evard (2000), and Castells (2000), there will be a shift in power relations. Decentralization of power is expected, moving from traditional holders such as the state to new holders like individuals, organizations, groups, and multinational corporations (Loader, 1997).

According to Slevin (2000), nation-states will face competition from other sources of power, causing traditional social organizations to be reconstructed. Hamilakis (2000) states that this reconstruction is possible as access to information becomes a new indicator of status. However, Evard (2000) argues that this shift in power would be a relative decline for the state, rather than an absolute decline, as other entities gain power. Sassen (2004) suggests that the most influential sources of power will be international businesses and financial centers, leading to new forms of power and politics at the subnational and supranational

level.

According to Hand and Sandywell (2002), the ruling elites and dominant classes will utilize modern communications technologies to enhance their power and control. Stratton (1997) contends that previously silenced groups now have the ability to express themselves and their opinions through the Internet. These groups and individuals can now actively participate as both creators and recipients of information, a departure from their previous role as passive audiences of traditional media (Stratton, 1997). Slevin (2000) suggests that the Internet now enables these groups and individuals to produce information in one-way communication. Additionally, the Internet serves as a platform for groups and individuals to voice their opinions about the failure of traditional authorities like the state (Slevin, 2000). Mills (2002) further argues that as information flows across borders, the nature and significance of sovereignty are likely to undergo change due to the increasing difficulty in asserting territorial control.

According to Loader (1997), the traditional functions of the state, such as defense, citizenship, and surveillance, will be challenged in this case.

On Virtual Communities and Cybernations

Hamilakis (2000), Mills (2002), Slevin (2000), and Foster (1997) have all adopted Benedict Anderson's concept of imagined communities to describe virtual communities. They all agree that members of these communities, although they may never meet everyone else, still have a sense of communion among them. Furthermore, communities can be defined as "sets of informal ties of sociability, support, and identity," rather than solely neighborhood solidarities or closely-knit groups of family and friends (Wellman & Hampton, 1999). Wilbur (1997) argues that it is not appropriate to view virtual communities as fitting within existing social realities.

The usage of old ideas

to define new phenomena should be avoided. It is acceptable for a comprehensive concept to have multiple interpretations. Each interpretation of the virtual community concept is constructed based on our personal preferences. According to Foster (1997), internet communities are considered virtual, but they may lack a strong sense of community. Slevin (2000) argues that the existence of virtual communities and cyberspaces relies on actual individuals and organizations.

Mills (2002) defines cybernations as communities that exist beyond geographical limits. Contrarily, Hamilakis (2000) argues that the Internet, despite being perceived as transcending national borders, actually reinforces nationalistic ideologies. In his study titled "Cyberspace/Cyberpast/Cybernation: Constructing Hellenism in Hyperreality," Hamilakis explores various websites promoting Greek culture and reveals their use of the Internet to strengthen the sense of community among diasporic Greeks and disseminate Greek culture and values in host countries. Furthermore, the Internet can be utilized to support a nation's right to self-determination.

The official website of the Tibetan government in exile aims to use the Internet to promote unity among Tibetans worldwide and advocate for their right to self-determination. Similarly, the Zapatistas' rebellion in Chiapas also utilized the Internet to mobilize support both locally and internationally. This demonstrates how offline organizers played a crucial role in rallying individuals without Internet access.

Moreover, the successful removal of President Slobodan Milosovic by the Yugoslavs through online information dissemination highlights the state's inability to control communication and information flow. These instances exemplify three categories of political information: messages that have potential to destabilize, culturally dominant information, and perspectives from outside the state (Evard, 2000). It is important to note that according to Evard (2000), all information carries a purpose and direction, making

it impossible for it to be considered neutral.

Synthesizing the information

According to the sources analyzed, the Internet has not been beneficial for developing countries in terms of globalization. There is a significant disparity called the digital divide that continues to exist between developed and developing nations primarily because electronic communication systems are expensive in developing countries. Nevertheless, the Internet's capacity to facilitate communication and sharing of information across geographical boundaries has resulted in a power shift.

It is believed that the Internet promotes globalization and homogenization of culture among people worldwide, causing a shift in power where the state loses some of its roles and authority. As a result, non-state actors and individuals gain what the state has lost. However, there have been instances where the Internet has been used to promote nationalism and local sentiments within communities and nations.

Virtual communities like cybernations are able to promote nationalistic sentiments and localities globally, sometimes challenging and overthrowing states. This can happen when states are unable to control the flow of information within and beyond their boundaries. In my opinion, digital divide is not always caused by insufficient financial and human resources. Singapore and Malaysia's efforts to censor the Internet are deliberate.

The limited access to information resulting from Internet censorship is a government-imposed measure aimed at preventing citizens from downloading or sharing content deemed harmful to national integrity. This exemplifies a digital divide between the state and its citizens, with the state holding a more advantageous position. It may also contribute to the growing digital divide between developed and developing countries. While developed nations actively embrace advancements in communication and network systems like the Internet, some developing

countries restrict their citizens' Internet access. Nevertheless, successfully evading government control in cyberspace does not guarantee accuracy or truthfulness in every instance.

Instead of solely relying on the states, I propose that the battle between states and individuals or organizations who display dissenting actions online is a continuous struggle. Both parties are constantly strategizing and trying to outsmart each other in order to gain an advantage. The concept of a digital divide can be applied to the gap between the state and these individuals or organizations who are vying for power. The objective is to widen this gap by surpassing the other party significantly.

To conclude, in my opinion, bridging the digital divide presents a greater challenge. While it may be costly for developing countries to invest in communication systems and infrastructures, it is not necessarily the main requirement. Providing systems and infrastructures to people who lack the knowledge and literacy to use them would be illogical. Thus, education becomes the crucial first step in narrowing this gap.

Instead of simply providing systems, the focus should be on providing education in order to ensure that users are able to operate computers effectively. After all, computers cannot function on their own.

References

1. Baird, Z. (2002). Governing the internet: engaging government, business, and nonprofits [Electronic version]. Foreign Affairs, 81(6), 15-20.
2. Castells, M. (2000). Toward a sociology of the network society [Electronic version]. Contemporary Sociology, 29 (5), 693-699.
3. Cho, J., De Zuniga, H.G., Rojas, H., ; Shah, D.V.

The article "Beyond access: the digital divide and internet uses and gratifications" by (2003) can be found at http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i04/v01i04a04.pdf. Another study conducted by Coget, J.F.,

Yutaka, Y., and Suman, M. (2002) is also relevant to the topic.

The internet, social networks, and loneliness. IT, 1(1). Retrieved October 15, 2004 from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i07/v01i01a12.pdf

Foster, D. (1997). Community and identity in the electronic Village. In D.

Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (23-37). New York: Routledge.

The text comprises the following references with :

- New Media; Society, 2(1), 7-28.

- Hamilakis, Y. (2000). Cyberspace/cyberpast.cybernation: constructing Hellenism in hyperreality [Electronic version]. European Journal of Archaeology, 3(2), 241-264.

- Hand, M., ; Sandywell B.

(2002). E-topia as cosmopolis or citadel on the democratizing and de-democratizing logics of the internet, or toward a critique of the new technological fetishism [Electronic version]. Theory, Culture, & Society, 19(1-2), 197-225.

Loader, B. D. (Ed.). (1997).

The book "The governance of cyberspace: politics, technology and global restructuring" written by London: Routledge is a valuable resource on the subject.

(2001). Reshaping communications: technology, information and social change. London: SAGE Publications.

Rule, J. (1999).

Silver bullets or land rushes? sociologies of cyberspace [Electronic Version]. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 661-664.

Local actors in global politics [Electronic version]. Current Sociology, 52(4), 649-670.

Stratton, J. (1997). Cyberspace and the globalization of culture.

In

D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (253-273). New York: Routledge.

The articles mentioned below are sources for the following information:

• Turkle, S. (1999). "Looking toward cyberspaces: beyond grounded sociology" [Electronic version]. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 643-648.
• Wellman, B., & Hampton, K.

(1999). Living networked on and offline [Electronic version]. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 648-654.

Wenchong, C., ; Wellman, B. (2004). The global digital divide - within and between countries. IT, 1(7).

The source for the information is taken from http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/itandsociety/v01i07/v01i07a03.pdf. The author of the paper is S. P. Wilbur and it was published in 1997. The paper discusses the archaeology of cyberspaces, focusing on virtuality, community, and identity. The information can be found in section 3 of the paper.

Porter (Ed.), Internet culture (5-21). New York: Routledge.