Week 6: Civic Engagement.

I often find the concept of civic engagement to be ambiguous.  What constitutes as civic engagement is subjective to one's views of government, media, traditionalism, and several other factors.  This ambiguity is addressed by W. Lance Bennett who states the following:

"OK, young people may well be participating and engaging in all sorts of very active and interesting ways online; and we could probably think of many other examples.  But in what ways is this CIVIC engagement? ...“media engagement” is not necessarily the same as “civic engagement.”  I would accept other people’s comments to the effect that this term “civic” is a little worthy and moralistic... but how, in the end, are we defining what counts as “civic” and what doesn’t? (Bennett, 2008, p.4)."

Are we now left to define, or rather redefine, "civic engagement"?  I would venture to say yes.  The internet has changed the culture of the world, and government and politics are no exception.  Many of the activities associated with civic engagement, such as fund-raising, protesting, or political discourse, have long ago began a transition from the traditional public sphere to the networked public.  However, I am by no means advocating the end of traditional civic engagement.  If anything, I support the role traditional civic engagement has taken in functioning in a productive and collaborative manner with the networked public.  I do believe, however, that civic engagement through the networked pubic does not undermine the principles of civic engagement.  Furthermore, not only does this collaboration of processes not undermine the principles of civic engagement, it may even enforce it.

I also believe that the term "engagement" invokes thoughts of physical contributions.  In the minds of a more senior community, "engagement" is not heavily associated with the actions of digital society, but rather is associated with individuals stepping outdoors and contributing the "outside" community.  If the dichotomies of traditional civic engagement and networked civic engagement are not fully comprehended, the conceptualization of young adult as disengaged citizens will continue to thrive.

Works Cited

Bennett, W. Lance. “Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age." Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth .E dited by W. Lance Bennett. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 1–24. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524827.001

Culture

Media convergence and emerging technologies has created an ability for information to be created and dispersed at a rate that previous technologies could simply not afford us.  While this can be extremely empowering, it can also create an illusion of greater individual visibility cloaked over an deep pool of irrelevance.

Members of society have always competed for the podium.  Whether in class, at social gatherings, or simply at one's home, we all want/need to be heard.  Our voices need to resonate.  Being the emerging voice in a crowd of opinions and ideologies can be both empowering and freeing, yet also difficult to obtain in the era of social media.  All too often a solitary view/opinion will compete with a plethora of similar stances and an equally large plethora of opposing stances.  Though more individuals are given the chance to speak their minds than ever before, it is still the voices of the elite that are the loudest.

Communal watering hole

"We gather at the communal watering hole as we always did; only now we don't reach out to those around us.  Instead, we communicate with far-flung souls using means that would be indistinguishable from magic for all but our most recent ancestors" (Friedberg & Varneslis, 2008, p16). 

This extremely profound statement left me reflecting on the period of society in which we currently live in.  Social interactions with those in our vicinity are no longer the sole, or perhaps predominant, mode of communication, but rather a secondary option competing with the growing networked public.  However, we still find the need to gather in a close vicinity, e.g. cafes, while communicating with the networked public.  Does this stem from a desire or need for familiarity?  Perhaps, though the answer is may be more complex.  Though there has been a decline of face-to-face interactions in such environments, the creation of the social network community breeds a familiarity of network-practicing peers.  Much like the communal watering hole ensured the gathering of  individuals wishing to converse verbally. the emergence of  "Wi-Fi cafes" ensured the gathering of a like-minded grouping: individuals willing to participate in the networked society. 

The progression of human interactions and gatherings has seen gradual steps.  The creation of the telephone and broadcast television, for examples, have led to varying discourse about their effects on social interaction, much like the current discourse surrounding the networked society. An emergence of such prior discourse can be seen in the doubling of space concept, presented by cultural theorists Marshall McLuhan and Joshua Meyrowitz ( (Friedberg & Varneslis, 2008, p16),  which displayed a presumed social benefit of the creation of television: one's simultaneous presence in two different places.  Cultures which had previously relied on a singular space of close vicinity for socializing and communicating were now adapting to the nuanced perception of spaces and interactions.  Broadcast television, and other technological developments, were altering, the perceptions of a culture founded on physical contact.

Though many thought-provoking discourses have been addressed in this assigned reading, I felt as though the profound leap that the internet and smart phones have taken from prior technologies has not been fully emphasized.  Though telecommunications have undoubtedly altered social interactions, they have not diminished audible communications to the degree in which has been caused by the internet and smart phones.