“In a poetic sense the prime goal of the new economy is to undo – company by company, industry by industry – the industrial economy..” K. Kelly
The goal of the Internet may very well have been a cyberutopia, but the relatively recent development of our information economy is having profound changes on our social and cultural organisation. In his article, New Rules for the New Economy, Kelly speaks reverently about our currently trajectory toward universal connection, where even inanimate objects will be able to communication with each other. I, on the other hand, am more inclined to consider both the positive and negative effects of unfettered digital network growth. Looking further into Kelly’s work, I discovered that other authors have also critiqued his ideas about the merging of the realms of nature and human construction. Kelly’s future world encompasses open, decentralized systems and cooperation among all elements.
While I agree that the information economy exists in a very big way, I find Kelly’s ideas very Western-centric. Statistics taken from this website reveal that even today only 30% of people worldwide have access to the internet, the highest proportion of these people are in (surprise, surprise) Europe, North America and Oceania. If the network economy is founded on technology, how can we even begin to fathom a universal connection when almost a quarter of the population still live below the poverty line? The term ‘digital divide’ is often used to describe this phenomenon, however it is a simplistic expression and doesn’t adequately capture the complexity of the situation.
“Pippa Norris's The Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty & the Internet Worldwide (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni Press 2001) suggests that there are at least three major divides:
- a global divide between the developed and undeveloped worlds
- a social divide between the information rich and the information poor
- a democratic divide between those who do and those who do not use the new technologies to further political participation”
More information about this can be found here
Back to Kelly’s theories, he discusses the positive effects of a decentralised system. The Internet is the most pervasive example of this. The lack of control and authority means that certain technologies are being utilised beyond their originally intended purposes. In many cases, changes to the way these networks are used are a productive and meaningful growth. A compelling example is the way Facebook and Twitter have been used in North Africa during the pro-democracy uprisings. Amnesty says “social media sites are increasingly challenging state authorities in the Middle East and North Africa who have sought to maintain control over the flow of information in their countries.” I find the effect the Internet is having on political process very interesting and hope to explore it further in the research project.
I totally agree with you when you say that these are Western-centric ideas. Most of the population of Africa lives with less than 1$ a day. Most parts of the continent don't even have a phone so..how could they even afford to have a computer or buy online? I think that maybe 50% of the population of the continent hasn't ever seen a computer or heard about it. (and please forgive me if I'm wrong)
ReplyDeleteIt's true that the Western world is the one to "have" the money (if we forget that thing about "stealing" some other people's resources and wars because of those resources), but with wars, economic crisis and the social revolutions that have been going on these past few months...no one knows when this can change.