This will be a series of blog posts that I am writing to assist me in the work of developing my book. Basically, I want to engage in a critical analysis, as it pertains to my interest in civics and citizenship education, of some of the key scholars in a range of different fields. I will be aiming to describe their arguments, the relevance of those arguments to my work, and any differing points of view related to the work in question.
This section on Evegeny Morozov’s The Net Delusion, will fit in with Chapter Two: Apathetic or activist? Young people, citizenship and the public sphere.
I’ve been thoroughly enjoying reading Morozov’s The Net Delusion. He has a refreshing point of view about the role of the internet in society, and a straightforward, take-no-prisoners way of expressing it. It is also very obvious that he has engaged in considerable research and scholarship about the topic, and that research informs his arguments. However, I’m not entirely sure I agree with the conclusions he draws about the efficacy of the internet in terms of social movements. Of course, I am conscious that I am operating with the benefit of hindsight (The Net Delusion was written in 2011), but I think there is still more
Morozov questions how much of a role the internet, and in particular social media, had to play in various revolutions that were the start of what later came to be known as ‘The Arab Spring’. He starts of with an analysis of The Iran Uprising in late 2010, and in particular, the way that it was breathlessly covered by journalists and academics as a sign of things to come. These academics, including Clay Shirky, suggested that the internet, and social media, were going to play a role in dismantling authoritarian regimes around the world, and Twitter was going to be at the vanguard of any such action. Despite any real evidence to support the claim, these scholars suggested that the globalising, open access to internet
This is a crucial point; certainly, Morozov makes a convincing argument that technology is often bound up with ideas of democracy; that is, as technology develops, there is a natural arc towards democratic ideals. What follows from this argument, then, is that if any authoritarian regime is exposed significantly to technological advances (such as micro-blogging and social media), then naturally its only a matter of time until it becomes a fully fledged democracy. It’s not a new argument – he makes a good point about how the fall of the Berlin Wall was often attributed to the superior technology of the west.
So what does this mean for young people? Well, I think the crucial point here is one of scale; Morozov is talking about country-wide democratic processes and movements. My first question is wether this applies on a smaller scale – to the small p political movements and civic engagement with which I am interested in. Related to this question is my thoughts about what this might mean for civic education. I think an obvious point is that, in much the same way that VCRs were not responsible for the collapse of the Berlin Wall, neither will Twitter be responsible for a burgeoning of civic interest and democratic thought. Equally, simply having digital and social media in the classroom and in the community will not necessarily mean that young people are going to become more civically engaged. Indeed, if Morozov’s example from Iran means anything, access to technology is also likely to lead to uncivic engagement and even possibly civic disengagement’s – which is perhaps what we are seeing in the twitter phenomenon of ‘dog piles’ and doxing.