I found Elizabeth Hanson's section on the Digital Divide in Chapter Five (p163) particularly compelling because of my current work with an INGO (International Non-Governmental Organization). We work with rural communities in Nepal, India and Bhutan to build community library and resources centers. Among many other details in the project construction, an important component is a section for a computer center with Internet capabilities (when possible).
Our computer sections have had varying degrees of success due to many of the reasons that Hanson listed. In Nepal specifically, the major problem is electricity. While Nepal has bountiful sources of hydroelectric power, much of it gets funneled off to the surrounding superpowers of India and China leaving little for the local population. Last winter in Kathmandu, they had load shedding of up to 18 hours - this means they had days where they didn't have electricity for 18 hours. This is in the capitol city so imagine the outlying areas (unless they have created an independent power source which is becoming more popular). My INGO can bring computers and give training but if there isn't any power, they are no more useful than giant paper weights.
Another huge obstacle is the cost. Nepal has not created an official Internet backbone or network across the country so it is an assortment of private lines and the cost to use it is ourageous. So now, even if there is power, they can't afford to link the computers to the Internet and access all of the information out there.
Hanson also discussed the idea of developing countries being able to "leapfrog" intermediate stages of communication development (Chpt 3, p67). I have already seen this at work in the mountainous , rugged countryside of Nepal. I visited a remote village that took 8 hours of hiking straight up the side of a mountain to reach. There were no roads and definitely no TV or internet lines. However, this village had rigged satellite towers that bounced a signal off various mountain top stations to form a basic wireless Internet connection. This rural community had skipped the wires and gone straight to wireless. However, when we tried it out, the connection failed because it was solar powered and it was cloudy.
In addition, cell phones are now used across a majority of the country. Only 10 years ago, one of our centers had a telephone installed so that it could charge a fee for villagers to use it as a successful way of financially supporting the center. Now that business is obsolete as cell phones and wireless technologies have spread and homes that never own a telephone now have cell phones.
These rural networks still have a long way to go before even being close to the level that exist in developed countries. The Digital Divide will continue to widen if developing countries aren't at least introduced to the tools other countries are using so they can hopefully one day compete and interact on the the global digital playing field.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Winners and Losers
The readings this week cover the technological developments in communications and the role of ICTs in globalization. I think that chapter 3 in the Hanson book provides good background information for understanding the evolution of communications technology. However, I will be focusing my post on the other readings concerned with globalization and information technology.
Hanson states that ICTs have both a direct and indirect effect on the distributional effects of globalization. Indirectly, the infrastructure of ICTs facilitate the economic changes associated with globalization. Access to ICTs directly affects "the interaction capacity, employment, and income of states and individuals" (Hanson 159). These effects define the debate as to whether advancements in ICTs have expanded economic opportunity or increased inequality and marginalization.
At the national, supranational and sub-national levels, one can see the disparity in access and use of modern ICTs. Many of the places that lack access to ICTs also lack more basic needs, such as clean water, shelter and food. It is clear that a distinction between winners and losers results from the liberalization of economic policies. Led by the US and other Western countries, this process of liberalization took place globally throughout the 80s and 90s.
When discussing the losers of economic liberalization, most focus on developing countries, but the US has also not wholly come out a winner from this process. I find it ironic that the US push for global economic liberalization, as well as US and Western advancements in ICTs have resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs due to offshore outsourcing. Like the old adage, "You've made your bed, and now you have to lay in it," Americans are now faced with large unemployment problems, exacerbated by the current financial crisis.
The issue of outsourcing was a very hot topic in the early 2000s, and throughout this debate, I continually thought to myself, "the US is a country based on innovation and entrepreneurs and always being on the cutting edge. If we are losing our competitive advantage in one area of business, we need to come up with some other industry or industries in which we can be competitive." Of course I know that the process of coming up with a new industry is much more complicated than just saying to do so. However, I find it very frustrating to see the US advocate some policy that it sees as a benefit for (most importantly) itself but also the majority of other nation-states and then when there are negative consequences, the political tide turns and the government and people try to reverse their earlier support or at least make some sort of exception, so that the US can opt out. Instead of appearing hypocritical, perhaps Americans should put more effort into being on the cutting edge of whatever field piques their interest.
In an international system based on capitalist, free market ideals, there are always going to be winners and losers. Within this world system, the difficulty arises in trying to decrease the number of losers and in trying to mitigate the negative consequences for those who do not benefit.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Inter+National Media
The readings this week cover various facets of media as a means to connect and/or spread common culture. Among these three articles, I found the chapter entitled "Media and the Reinvention of the Nation" particularly interesting.
The Waisbord chapter puts this week's theme in the context of nation building. He sees the media as an institution involved in "the creation, maintenance, and transformation of cultural membership" (377). Citing the work of both Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson, Waisbord highlights the significance of media throughout the transition from agrarian to industrial societies and the importance of print technologies in the formation of a common public culture, an important ingredient in the development of nations.
However, later in his paper, Waisbord discusses why the idea of "national media" no longer exists in this globalized world. He cites two main reasons for the irrelevance of this term in the current media environment: the globalization of the media business and the "cross-pollination" of media production ideas (381). One media technology that has resisted the forces of globalization and remained primarily a local medium is radio. Especially in developing countries, radio continues to be a source for local news and information due to a lack of access to other communications technologies.
Waisbord posits that the continuing existence of nations and nationalism is dependent on the persistence of national identity as the chosen level of group identity and that currently no other group identity has been able to trump this level. The power of the media in nation building lies in the ability to reinforce national feelings on an everyday basis. If this is possible for the media, why is it then not possible for the media to encourage a cosmopolitan identity, in which a universalist, global consciousness is pursued? Waisbord suggests that cosmopolitanism "lacks emotional grip" (385). I tend to agree with this statement. However, I don't think the current absence or lower level of connection to the global community precludes a lack of common identity in the future. At the beginning of this chapter, Waisbord writes that "neither subnational nor supranational formations and identities offer viable alternative identities to minimize, let alone eliminate, nationalistic feelings" (375). I do not fully agree with this position. I think that there are many subnational identities that for many supersede national identity, e.g. Basque, Chechen, etc. I also think that supranational formations have come into existence in the relatively recent past and thus have not had the time to reach their full potential in forming common identities among their member populace. The EU is an excellent example of this in that since its founding as the ECSC, the EU has developed from a method of oversight for key military-related industries into an economic, political and increasingly social union. Thus, a German citizen is no longer just a German citizen, but also an EU citizen.
As the dominance of the nation and nationalism in the world system wane, the power of the media to set the tone for international communications becomes critical to the continued pursuance of international understanding and cooperation in this globalized world.
Analysis Question One
I do believe that many of the concerns that have driven the political economy debate are still relevant; however, there is a major question that must be expanded upon and hopefully answered. "How do the media intervene in the twin movements of inclusion and exclusion...?" (Waisboard,The early concerns of gaining and maintaining imperial power by using the media to portray personal, "nationalistic" ideas are still prevalent today. It is apparent that the global media is here to stay, but concuring with Waisboard inclusion and exclusion must be at the forefront of the debate. Scholars and policy-makers alike must discover a way to allow individualism thorough a global society. Cosmopolitanism must be created. One idea should not become "mainstream media."
Globalophobes and globalophiles both have legit arguments. America does play a major if not majority role in global media, but it contributes to cultural diversity for other households that will never visit America, or their countries strongly lead against American principles. However, another question that needs to be answered that is not addressed by globalophiles is the persistent power inequalities in culutural assumption and production. This fact cannot be ignored.
The political economy is definitely relevant in media production. It's interesting how "nations" express different reasons to be against globalization, but as long as they benefit monetarily it is sufficient. For instance, a Japanese corporation owns major production studios in Hollywood. Univision is the largest Spanish-language US network, and it is in 92 percent of Hispanic households, according to Karim. In terms of diasporic media, Univision broadcasts are availale to most of Latin America. Is this practice a way of providing Waisboard's cosmopolitanism?
Overall, global media as it relates to the political economy has a way of bringing people and cultures together by offering shared experiences. The trick is for nations not to allow one country views to become the "hear all, say all," and began to integrate ideas of commonality and not focus entirely on differences.
Globalophobes and globalophiles both have legit arguments. America does play a major if not majority role in global media, but it contributes to cultural diversity for other households that will never visit America, or their countries strongly lead against American principles. However, another question that needs to be answered that is not addressed by globalophiles is the persistent power inequalities in culutural assumption and production. This fact cannot be ignored.
The political economy is definitely relevant in media production. It's interesting how "nations" express different reasons to be against globalization, but as long as they benefit monetarily it is sufficient. For instance, a Japanese corporation owns major production studios in Hollywood. Univision is the largest Spanish-language US network, and it is in 92 percent of Hispanic households, according to Karim. In terms of diasporic media, Univision broadcasts are availale to most of Latin America. Is this practice a way of providing Waisboard's cosmopolitanism?
Overall, global media as it relates to the political economy has a way of bringing people and cultures together by offering shared experiences. The trick is for nations not to allow one country views to become the "hear all, say all," and began to integrate ideas of commonality and not focus entirely on differences.
IC, Media, and Globalization
Castells chapter dicusses the public sphere and how vital it is to sociopolitical organizations. Castells presents the four interrelated political crises—crisis of efficiency, legitimacy, identity and equity. Each crisis affects countries individual governments. The global civil society is where local ideas are maintained and defended by local civil society actors, which are various grassroots organizations NGOs, and other self-interest groups). Each component of the society has an interest in emphasizing its personal views, building support for those ideas, and limiting or utilizing globalization. NGOs are a great example of organizations that utilize globalization via global media and campaigns in order to reach necessary people and pressure governments to act positively in the favored direction. The presidential election in Iraq this past summer was an example of the movement of public opinion. However, those individuals used the global media (i.e. YouTube, Twitter) in order to shed light on the injustice that some Iraqis were feeling. There are other movements that aim to control the globalization process. I particularly enjoyed Castells’ section about the new public sphere because he offers a great explanation of the current media system.
Karim’s chapter reviews the “national” in “international communication.” According to Karim, the idea of a nation is imaginary. The individuals apart of a nation form their own realities of what a nation is because they form the beliefs, actions, and practices that create the nation. Karim discusses and explains different diasporas and their nomadic practices and links it to modern day disputes and the modern day global structure. Diasporic media are growing exponentially. A real-life example that I experienced was during the digital television transition. I was an intern for the Federal Communications Commission. While in Austin, Texas, the Spanish network was not able to successfully transition. Thousands of its viewers were without that channel. We received numerous complaints and phone calls regarding this issue. Many Hispanic peoples felt they were out of touch with their communities. That one instance exhibited the importance and impact of diasporic media.
Waisboard’s article begins with two answers to the origin of nations. One answer states that a top-down political process created homogeneity and one culture. The second answer states that nationalism preceded political centralization. Waisboard makes a critical point in the beginning of the article, and sets the tone for the ongoing debate of media and globalization. He states that “media need to be understood as a set of institutions involved in the creation, maintenance, and transformation of cultural membership" (p. 377). Waisboard explains the ideas of globophones and globophiles and “national media.” I personally favor the view of the globophiles because technological changes around the globe, particularly with media, do contribute to a more diverse culture. Whereas years ago, some people would have never seen or known anything outside of their own village, city, or state. It is very intriguing how radio still remains a local medium. How did all other early forms of media (i.e. television, newspapers) become victimized, for lack of better, to globalization? Waisboard concludes by suggesting that the idea of the nation will remain as long as individuals establish unity and difference from others. Inclusion and exclusion are essential.
Honestly, I am learning a lot regarding international communication, yet some of the reading is hard to follow because this is not my background. However, if I had to summarize all of this week’s readings, I would simply say that globalization is an ongoing process that will not disappear. It will continue to occur especially as technology progresses.
Karim’s chapter reviews the “national” in “international communication.” According to Karim, the idea of a nation is imaginary. The individuals apart of a nation form their own realities of what a nation is because they form the beliefs, actions, and practices that create the nation. Karim discusses and explains different diasporas and their nomadic practices and links it to modern day disputes and the modern day global structure. Diasporic media are growing exponentially. A real-life example that I experienced was during the digital television transition. I was an intern for the Federal Communications Commission. While in Austin, Texas, the Spanish network was not able to successfully transition. Thousands of its viewers were without that channel. We received numerous complaints and phone calls regarding this issue. Many Hispanic peoples felt they were out of touch with their communities. That one instance exhibited the importance and impact of diasporic media.
Waisboard’s article begins with two answers to the origin of nations. One answer states that a top-down political process created homogeneity and one culture. The second answer states that nationalism preceded political centralization. Waisboard makes a critical point in the beginning of the article, and sets the tone for the ongoing debate of media and globalization. He states that “media need to be understood as a set of institutions involved in the creation, maintenance, and transformation of cultural membership" (p. 377). Waisboard explains the ideas of globophones and globophiles and “national media.” I personally favor the view of the globophiles because technological changes around the globe, particularly with media, do contribute to a more diverse culture. Whereas years ago, some people would have never seen or known anything outside of their own village, city, or state. It is very intriguing how radio still remains a local medium. How did all other early forms of media (i.e. television, newspapers) become victimized, for lack of better, to globalization? Waisboard concludes by suggesting that the idea of the nation will remain as long as individuals establish unity and difference from others. Inclusion and exclusion are essential.
Honestly, I am learning a lot regarding international communication, yet some of the reading is hard to follow because this is not my background. However, if I had to summarize all of this week’s readings, I would simply say that globalization is an ongoing process that will not disappear. It will continue to occur especially as technology progresses.
Diaspora Communities As a Threat to Nationalism?
Both the Karim reading and the Waisbord reading present a unique perspective into the national identity crisis by examining the influence of two subjects: communication and Diaspora communities.
Waisbord begins by suggesting that for many communities, nationalism replaced religion as a form of identity, and that media was a vehicle through which new nationalistic ideas were promoted. The author argues there were two main communication mediums through which nationalism grew: print media, especially in Latin America, and radio. With the development of print technology, national figures and symbols became public and more prominent aspects of the nation-state. In addition, radio became a popular tool for nation building, as its “low barriers to entry” made it easily available and accessible for even developing nations. Thus, while these two forms of communication developed or publicized the nascent nationalism, both authors also claim that certain factors simultaneously threaten the identity of the nation-state: Diaspora communities.
What I found so interesting about these articles was the idea that Diaspora communities threaten national identity. Never before had I truly examined the extent to which Diaspora communities present an opportunity for nationalism revision. For example, Karim notes that “the European concept of the nation-state was loosely based on the idea of a shared ethnicity of the population that lived within a particular territory” (394). But if nation-states are based on ethnicity, how are the outlier communities factored in? Adversely, if a nation-state is based on national borders, as the Treaty of Westphalia suggests, then are the Diaspora communities living within the national boundaries part of the national identity? Thus, does an ethnically homogenous nation exist?
In my experiences, the nation-state with the strongest sense of nationalism is Italy. After spending a significant amount of time there, I noticed the xenophobic tendencies of Italians. Yes, Italy too has a large immigrant community, but the immigrants and Diaspora communities have not formed a strong culture or identity that questions the nationalism of Italy. Italian racism towards immigrants deters the Diaspora populations, in my opinion, from maintaining their former identities.
In conclusion, this week’s articles encouraged me to question the meaning of nationalism, and its development through the media. The media has become an essential tool in legitimizing components of a nationalistic identity, such as language, history, and fables. I was also prompted to question the affect of Diaspora communities on national identity. As ethnic conflicts continue to heighten, we must wonder; do the Diaspora communities threaten a state’s nationalism, or do they actually harness more pride in an effort to deter Diaspora identities?
Waisbord begins by suggesting that for many communities, nationalism replaced religion as a form of identity, and that media was a vehicle through which new nationalistic ideas were promoted. The author argues there were two main communication mediums through which nationalism grew: print media, especially in Latin America, and radio. With the development of print technology, national figures and symbols became public and more prominent aspects of the nation-state. In addition, radio became a popular tool for nation building, as its “low barriers to entry” made it easily available and accessible for even developing nations. Thus, while these two forms of communication developed or publicized the nascent nationalism, both authors also claim that certain factors simultaneously threaten the identity of the nation-state: Diaspora communities.
What I found so interesting about these articles was the idea that Diaspora communities threaten national identity. Never before had I truly examined the extent to which Diaspora communities present an opportunity for nationalism revision. For example, Karim notes that “the European concept of the nation-state was loosely based on the idea of a shared ethnicity of the population that lived within a particular territory” (394). But if nation-states are based on ethnicity, how are the outlier communities factored in? Adversely, if a nation-state is based on national borders, as the Treaty of Westphalia suggests, then are the Diaspora communities living within the national boundaries part of the national identity? Thus, does an ethnically homogenous nation exist?
In my experiences, the nation-state with the strongest sense of nationalism is Italy. After spending a significant amount of time there, I noticed the xenophobic tendencies of Italians. Yes, Italy too has a large immigrant community, but the immigrants and Diaspora communities have not formed a strong culture or identity that questions the nationalism of Italy. Italian racism towards immigrants deters the Diaspora populations, in my opinion, from maintaining their former identities.
In conclusion, this week’s articles encouraged me to question the meaning of nationalism, and its development through the media. The media has become an essential tool in legitimizing components of a nationalistic identity, such as language, history, and fables. I was also prompted to question the affect of Diaspora communities on national identity. As ethnic conflicts continue to heighten, we must wonder; do the Diaspora communities threaten a state’s nationalism, or do they actually harness more pride in an effort to deter Diaspora identities?
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Analysis Question 1
The debate in International Communications research has been driven by political-economy concerns stemming from government control and goals of international media & technology. The result of these government actions has historically favored larger economies with greater levels of communication control over smaller economies. Political-economy concerns are still valid as there remains a very unbalanced level of control of communications between countries around the world.
The theories that Thussu highlights including dependency, modernization, globalization & hegemony all have their basis in the idea of uneven control models that are still relevant now. Innis’ monopolies of power become a more pressing issue as markets spread around the world allowing monopolies to stretch outside of national borders. All of these theories maintain relevance as communications become more globally integrated and connected.
However, I think that new areas are emerging that researchers and policy-makers should pay attention to as well. One area is the power of corporations and consumerism. What is the impact of global marketing and advertising? How is this form of communication affecting different countries? Transnational corporations are taking more control over media outlets so that they can access larger markets of consumers. Their huge bank accounts and lobbying power allow them influence on government policy as well. In the past, the goal of controlling media was government’s national interest in economic or political gain. Now there is an additional goal of huge corporate profits and increased consumerism.
The political-economy concerns over control of communications continues but as power shifts from government policy to corporate influence, research needs to focus on the changing priorities & goals and the international impact.
The theories that Thussu highlights including dependency, modernization, globalization & hegemony all have their basis in the idea of uneven control models that are still relevant now. Innis’ monopolies of power become a more pressing issue as markets spread around the world allowing monopolies to stretch outside of national borders. All of these theories maintain relevance as communications become more globally integrated and connected.
However, I think that new areas are emerging that researchers and policy-makers should pay attention to as well. One area is the power of corporations and consumerism. What is the impact of global marketing and advertising? How is this form of communication affecting different countries? Transnational corporations are taking more control over media outlets so that they can access larger markets of consumers. Their huge bank accounts and lobbying power allow them influence on government policy as well. In the past, the goal of controlling media was government’s national interest in economic or political gain. Now there is an additional goal of huge corporate profits and increased consumerism.
The political-economy concerns over control of communications continues but as power shifts from government policy to corporate influence, research needs to focus on the changing priorities & goals and the international impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)