The Internet and Four Dimensions of Citizenship

Abstract

This chapter studies the implications of the various technical developments for citizenship, relying mostly on the term ‘Internet’ as a synecdoche. It then identifies the four dimensions of citizenship, looking at how they relate to media, and also tries to determine how the Internet interacted – and possibly revolutionized – these dimensions of citizenship.

Political protest 2.0: Social media and the 2012 student strike in the province of Quebec, Canada

“…Some point out that social media have fostered the hyper decentralization and segmentation of the digital mediascape, which is no longer controlled in a quasimonopolistic manner by large political and media organizations and other elites with generally narrow strategic interests (Webster and Ksiazek, 2012;Raynauld, 2013;Gibson, 2015;Kavada, 2015). By providing low-cost and flexible outlets for political action to individuals and groups with wide-ranging concerns and goals, some of which very specific in nature, social media have contributed to the diversification of political information flows and social interactions (Neuman et al, 2011;Turcotte and Raynauld, 2014;Theocharis et al, 2015). Furthermore, social media have given web users the ability to self-organize without the assistance of formal political entities or other hierarchized leadership structures, a phenomenon defined as 'organizing without organizations' (Shirky, 2008;Bimber et al, 2012).…”

Expanding the Online Political Demos but Maintaining the Status Quo? Internet and Social Media Use by Finnish Voters Prior to Elections, 2003–15

“…In the broader literature on adoption and diffusion of new innovations (Rogers ; ), two traits are usually pinpointed as central to the longitudinal process: the technology itself, and the individual characteristics of those (either individuals or organisations) making the decision whether or not to adopt a certain innovation. This theory has relevance to the longitudinal development of citizens’ use of the Internet for political purposes (see Neuman et al for discussion).…”

“…During this time, Norris coined the now well‐established terms ‘mobilisation’ and ‘reinforcement’ – the former capturing the optimistic visions of an Internet with the potential to activate previously inactive citizens, while the latter described the pessimistic visions of an Internet where online politics would only ‘preach to the already converted’ (Norris ; ). However, bearing in mind that new channels are initially used in old ways in politics, and that only a narrow atypical segment of voters engage in them initially (e.g., Neuman et al ), many initial assessments of the political impact of information and communication technologies (ICTs) are bound to have missed the mark (cf. Boulianne , 205).…”

A Habermasian perspective on joint meaning making online: What does it offer and what are the difficulties?

“…Indeed his theory of communicative action seems to fit very well with the idea of a discursive approach to learning for which communication technology offers valuable affordances. Add to the mix Habermas's focus on discourse and his appreciation of a democratic public sphere 7 and it is not difficult to see why many online innovations, particularly civic networks, claim to be grounded on Habermasian foundations (see, for example Neuman, Bimber & Hindman, 2011). However, Habermas's influence is not confined to open forums and his work was an early point of reference in more formal settings.…”