Abstract
This chapter critically examines the pervasive notion that the use of new information communication technologies (ICTs), which are perceived as inherently democratic, will automatically empower citizens in their relations with the state and that the majority of socio-political issues can be addressed solely through citizens’ technological empowerment. In the first part, we focus on the general characteristics of this universal solution frame. In the following part, the conditions of possibility of the frame are identified as neoliberal and technophilic rationality and are interrogated. The central aim of the third part is to critically evaluate the role of ICTs in empowering citizens, generating socio-political change and determining social progress through examples of recent events in North Africa and the Middle East. In conclusion, critical steps for reconceptualising the relationship between use of ICTs and empowered forms of citizenship are elaborated, and a set of factors that could be taken into consideration in future policy developments is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The existing literature is filled with different terms denoting the technological phenomena and innovation referred to here as ICTs. Terms like new media, the net, Internet, network of networks and cyberspace are used interchangeably to explain the same tools, applications gadgets and platforms. Clear distinctions between the terms are rarely made and according to some authors are not always fruitful (Bimber in Breindl 2010). For our purposes, the terms ICT or ICTs will be mostly used as they best characterise the broadness of the phenomena.
- 2.
For instance, the Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission 2010a) reinforces this view by assigning ICTs a “key enabling role that the use of ICT will have to play if Europe wants to succeed in its ambitions for Europe 2020”.
- 3.
The universal problem solution frame is understood as an assemblage of discursive and non-discursive practices that are based upon specific rationality, knowledge and relations of power (Foucault 1980; Nadesan 2008). It represents an assemblage of solutions that are established, implemented and perceived as the only possible ones. In this context, it frames both the issues and solutions in a specific way and establishes sites deemed appropriate for enunciating and addressing the issues and simultaneously silences oppositional understandings and solutions.
- 4.
For further elaboration of negative effects of ICTs on democratic processes, see, for instance, Chadwick (2003).
- 5.
OECD defines ‘digital divide’ as the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socio-economic levels with regard to both their opportunities to access ICTs and their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=4719. Accessed 15 May 2011.
- 6.
For instance, the curious case of EU strategies relating to eDemocracy and eInclusion, which are almost completely separated, results in the understanding that participation and inclusion are unrelated.
- 7.
- 8.
In our analysis, we will for the most part limit our reflections to the examples of Tunisia and Egypt. Other examples from the recent past, such as the example of the Iranian protests in 2009, and the present youth protests in Spain, also represent instances of ICT use for socio-political actions. Other examples will also be briefly discussed (Thampi and Kawlra 2010; Collin et al. 2011; Visan 2011), but the events in Tunisia and Egypt will nonetheless serve as primary examples.
- 9.
The metaphor and imagery of the glass city (the governing) and the informed citizen (the governed) are distinctive representations of this re-articulated form of government (Vedel 2006).
- 10.
The term “everyday activists” is used purposely, as different scholars and studies have showed that there is no direct correlation between the development and use of ICTs and socio-political activity (Jensen 2006; Bimber in Visan 2011). Even activists themselves note that focusing on the digital in “digital activism” is an erroneous interpretation of the events in Egypt and Tunisia (Morsi 2011).
- 11.
A possible indication of why use of ICTs in citizens’ engagement has different results in quasi-democratic and non-democratic states.
- 12.
The self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi had been portrayed as the final catalyst of mass civic engagement’ in Tunisia. Similarly, the arrest of Wael Ghonim and the activities that followed had been characterised as turning points in the peoples’ struggles against the oppressive regimes in Egypt.
References
Agre P (2002) Real-time politics: the Internet and the political process. Inf Soc 18(5):311–331
Anderson E (2009) Democracy: instrumental vs. non-instrumental value. In: Christiano T, Christman JP (eds) Contemporary debates in political philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA
Banjac M (2010) Developing Tanzanian civil society: desiring democracy, self-empowerment and the World Bank. J Organ Chang Manag 23(6):669–688
Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html. Accessed 15 May 2011
Biesta G (2011) The ignorant citizen: Mouffe, Rancière, and the subject of democratic education. Stud Philos Educ 30(2):141–153
Breindl Y (2010) Critique of the democratic potentialities of the Internet: a review of current theory and practice. TripleC TripleC 8(1):43–59
Burchell G (1993) Liberal government and techniques of the self. Econ Soc 22(3):267
Campion MG (1989) Technophilia and technophobia. Aust J Educ Technol 5(1):23–36
Chadwick A (2003) e-Government and e-democracy: a case for convergence? Paper for presentation at public policy in the e-government Era (II)
Chadwick A (2006) Internet politics. Oxford University Press, New York, NY
Clift S (2004) E-Government and democracy. Representation and citizen engagement in the information age. http://www.publicusnet. Accessed 15 Sep 2011
Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling together: online public engagement in policy deliberation. Hansard Society, London
Coleman S, Norris DF (2005) A new agenda for e-democracy. Int J Electron Govern Res 1(3):69–82
Collin P, Richardson I, Third A (2011) The benefits of social networking services. Cooperative Research Centre for Young People, Technology and Wellbeing, Melbourne, VIC
de Tocqueville A (1961) Democracy in America. With a critical appraisal of each volume. Schocken, New York, NY
Dewey J (1985) The later works, 1925–1953. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL
Doctorow C (2011) We need a serious critique of net activism. guardian.co.uk
European Commission (2010a) A digital agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245 final/2, 26.8.2010. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/documents/digital-agenda-communication-en.pdf. Accessed 30 Jun 2011
European Commission (2010b) Europe 2020 flagship initiative innovation union, COM(2010) 546 final. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-communication_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none. Accessed 28 May 2011
Fitzpatrick M (2001) The tyranny of health doctors and the regulation of lifestyle. Routledge, London
Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New York
Foucault M (2008) The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Foucault M (2009) Security, territory, and population: lectures at the college de France 1977–1978. Picador USA, New York, NY
Greenwald G (2010) The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention, Salon.com http://www.salon.com/2010/12/15/manning_3. Accessed 10 Dec 2011
Grossman LK (1995) The electronic republic: reshaping democracy in the information age. Viking, New York, NY
Hagen M (1997) A typology of electronic democracy. http://www.uni-giessen.de/fb03/vinci/labore/netz/hag_en.htm. Accessed 15 May 2011
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. Theor Cult Soc 19(1/2):197–225
Hauslohner A (2011) Is Egypt about to have a facebook revolution? Time
Held D (1995) Democracy and the global order: from the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
Hindess B (2001) The liberal government of unfreedom. Alternatives 26(2):93
Hoff J, Horrocks I, Tops PW (2000) Democratic governance and new technology: technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. Routledge, London
Isin EF, Turner BS (2002) Handbook of citizenship studies. Sage, London
Jensen JL (2006) The Minnesota E-democracy project; mobilizing the mobilized? In: Oates S, Owen DM, Gibson RK (eds) The Internet and politics: citizens, voters and activists. Routledge, London
Kampen JK, Snijkers K (2003) E-democracy: a critical evaluation of the ultimate e-dream. Soc Sci Comput Rev 21(4):491–496
Leary T (1996) Chaos and cyberculture. Editions du Lezard, Paris
Magniant S (2011) Will “Facebook generation” shape citizenship 2.0? http://www.lospaziodellapolitica.com/2011/01/will-facebook-generation-shape-citizenship-2-0. Accessed 20 Sep 2011
McCullagh K (2003) E-democracy: potential for Political Revolution? Int J Law Inf Technol 11(2):149–161
Morsi H (2011) Abdel Muti Hihajzi gets it: on revolutions, false miracles and social media. http://www.hanimorsi.com/blog/index.php/archives/2011/02/24/on-revolutions-false-miracles-and-social-media/ Accessed 22 Dec 2011
Nadesan MH (2008) Governmentality, biopower, and everyday life. Routledge, New York
Neocleous M (2003) Imagining the state. Open University Press, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Pateman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pikalo J (2010) Nova državljanstva v dobi globalizacije. Sophia, Ljubljana
Richards B (1993) Technophobia and technophilia. Br J Psychother 10(2):188–195
Richards R (2010) Digital citizenship and Web 2.0 tools. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 6(2):516–522
Rose N (1996) Governing “advanced” liberal societies. In: Barry A, Osborne T, Rose NS (eds) Foucault and political reason: liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities of government. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
Rose N (1999) Powers of freedom reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Rousseau J-J (1955) The social contract and discourses. J.M. Dent, London
Rupert M (2000) Ideologies of globalization contending visions of a new world order. Routledge, London
Sahraoui S (2007) E-inclusion as a further stage of e-government? Transforming government: people. Process Policy 1(1):44–58
Shapiro SM (2009) Revolution, facebook-style. Revolution 6:40
Shirky C (2011) The political power of social media. Foreign Aff 90(1):28–41
Smith C (2011) Egypt’s facebook revolution: Wael Ghonim thanks the social network. The Huffington Post
Taylor C (2011) Why not call it a facebook revolution? CNN Tech
Thampi BV, Kawlra A (2010) Empowering women leaders at the local level: translating descriptive representation to substantive representation through ICTs CITIGEN. http://gender-is-citizenship.net/node/58. Accessed 28 May 2011
Tolley M (2010) Citizenship betrayed: understanding today’s threats to democratic citizenship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC
Turner B (2001) The erosion of citizenship. Br J Sociol 52(2):189–209
Van de Donk W, Loader BD, Nixon PG, Rucht D (2004) Cyberprotest new media, citizens and social movements. Routledge, London
van Dijk JAGM (1996) Models of democracy—behind the design and use of new media in politics. Javnost 1:43–56
Vedel T (2006) The idea of electronic democracy: origins, visions and questions. Parliam Aff 59(2):226
Visan LC (2011) Houses that cry: online civic participation in post-communist Romania. McMaster J Commun 7(1):3
Vromen A (2008) Political change and the Internet in Australia: introducing GetUp. In: Häyhtiö T (ed) Net working/networking: citizen initiated Internet politics. University of Tampere, Tampere
Wilhelm AG (2000) Democracy in the digital age: challenges to political life in cyberspace. Routledge, New York, NY
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neubauer, T., Vuga, T., Ilc, B. (2012). ICT as the Facilitator of Postmodern and Empowered Forms of Citizenship: Myth or Reality?. In: Charalabidis, Y., Koussouris, S. (eds) Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27219-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27219-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27218-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27219-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)