Commons in Cyberspace
I have received another thinkpiece for our next report from Ross Ferguson of the Hansard Society. Ross has deliberately written a thought-provoking piece (as requested by me!) and is keen to hear other people’s thoughts.
Commons in Cyberspace
In 2001 Jay Blumler and Stephen Coleman set out a vision of a ‘Civic Commons in cyberspace’ (Blumler, J. G. & Coleman S. Realising Democracy Online: A Civic Commons in Cyberspace. IPPR/Citizens Online, 2001). The authors outlined an open space for citizens to gather and deliberate on proposals issued by public bodies; it would be created to be independent but with statutory status. This ‘electric commons’ would be no mere talking shop; it would be ‘an integral component of the representative system’.
Five years later, the UK’s political institutions have not got behind this vision but perhaps, in a round about way, citizens have taken it forward. For example, social network websites generated a lot of speculation in 2006.
MySpace, YouTube, Second Life and a raft of smaller niche sites host online communities where people gather to interact in seemingly ever greater numbers. People create and maintain their personal profiles, they view and download content uploaded by others, they rate it, comment on it, and they upload their own.
The sites are maintained for commercial purposes but their services are, in the main, provided free of charge. The companies behind them stay out of the way, offering only legal and technical services in return for a steady stream of advertising revenue. Arguably, these sites are the ‘commons’ in cyber world.
Don’t believe the hype - politics is big on social network sites (alongside the mountains of pop-culture, gossip and humour). Ideologies and policies are discussed with varying degrees of refinement but never for want of vigour. Campaigns and protests - large and small - have been set in motion targeted at local, national and international decision makers. The problem is that despite the wealth of talk online, there is frustratingly little action resulting from it. So, can these online communities make a civic and political impact in the offline world? Can sites like these ever constitute a ‘civic commons’ in cyberspace’?
Blumler and Coleman envisaged a new public body tasked with the management of their ‘Commons’, which would combine the virtues of visionary amateurism with thorough, practical professionalism. Whilst one agency might struggle to exert sufficient influence, perhaps a collective could. Government and Parliament are unwelcome participants in these online networks; commercial outfits will not (and should not) get involved. Therefore, the opportunity is with the not-for-profit and third sector organisations to convert the raw civic and political discourse happening online into something tangible that can influence real-world policy making.
As the virtual world gains ever more relevance in people’s everyday lives, civic organisations have the capacity to bring greater cohesion between the offline and online. Civic and charitable organisations can add practical and visionary value to social networks. They have the trust offline, and we have seen that they can transfer it online (For example, the Make Poverty History campaign, and the use of sites like Flickr by in-the-field activists such as Greenpeace). They have the practical skills to focus the noise of millions of voices in a way that can spur our institutions and politicians into action. They have the wherewithal to uncover useful data and evidence from the online clamour and get it in front of key decision-makers, whilst retaining a constant transparency. They have the commitment and feedback loops in place that can help people track the influence of their actions, thus promoting the democratic renewal that was the spur for Blumler and Coleman’s original vision.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Content To Be Different did an interesting piece about using the web to engage different audiences.
Having watched a local campaign (which I opposed) make very effective use of mixed media, including a blog and having talked to the organiser behind it, I’d say that relying on online activity to spill over into real world action is still some way off.
I suppose that anyone who’s developed a campaign understands just how hard it is to bring to life and then sustain, and this is true of the using the internet as anything else.
But the potential is there. The question in my mind is whether campaigners can think a bit more cleverly about how to use that potential or whether they’ll lapse into old habits.