On Freedland

Sam Bourne aka Jonathan Freedland wrote an interesting piece for the Guardian yesterday. You should read it here, because this post will be pretty meaningless otherwise.

I assume you've read it now. The article is all about how the internet will "revolutionise politics". The point he is making is that the internet will not just provide new forms of communicating about politicsm, but possibly alter the structure of politics altogther.

He says the internet is certainly being used as a new ways of communicating, but not yet much more than this:
"The technology is cool and fast, but it still tends to be about sending men to sit in wood-panelled parliaments and marble-floored senates."

His argument is taken a step further:
"I wonder too about the very units in which we now participate. Currently, geography matters a lot: we vote in the areas we physically inhabit. But if millions of people are linked by MySpace, why is that not a political community? I can foresee a future in which national diasporas, for example, operate the way territorial societies do now. If ever there is a peace agreement to ratify, perhaps the entire Palestinian people, dispersed across the world, would take part in a referendum. The current iron link between democracy and territoriality might grow weaker."

I wonder about this. It could happen, of course it could. But if it does, the causes of it won't simply be the fact that a new technology exists to enable it.

Freedland's argument is founded on technological determinism, unfortunately. I'm not interested in criticising Freedland directly - I wouldn't expect him to cover every factor behind sweeping social chaneg in one article.

In general terms, we do have to be careful about thinking things will change just because of the internet. The reality is that the internet will develop according to the wishes of its users, not vice versa.

For instance, you won't get lots more young people voting in elections just because politicians have a Myspace profile. The reasons for non-voting are deeper than this. Perhaps we will see new non-territorial political communities develop - and maybe the people involved will even use Myspace to communicate. But the internet will only ever be a facilitating tool. People aren't going to create a new political superstructure just because they can.

CB