Once-new technologies eventually become part of our everyday lives. Over time, the hopes and fears that we once held tend to recede in importance, as newer and more pressing concerns are raised. As technologies are integrated into everyday life, they become more ordinary and we stop thinking about them.
McChesney reminds us that even as this process of domestication unfolds, we must continue to critically think about the ways that culture, politics, economics, and other factors shape technologies. Even as the Internet becomes more and more embedded in our daily lives, we should remember the promises that it holds, and the negative effect that it can have. The technologies of the Internet are the result of human actions, and so they can be shaped (and re-shaped) to support different goals and uses. As McChesney writes:
“Any history of the past three decades will give prominent, if not preeminent, attention to the emergence of the Internet and the broader digital revolution. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, signs point to its being a globally defining feature of human civilization going forward, until it eventually becomes so natural, so much a part of the social central nervous system, as to defy recognition as something new or distinct to our being, like speech itself” (p.1).
Right now we are in a position to make sense of not just the Internet, but also the decisions that society can make about what type of Internet we will have. Different kinds of technologies make different histories – and different futures – than others. The social shaping approach to studying technology focuses on how we can influence these developments in both directions. It seeks to find a middle ground between the social relations that give rise to our technologies, and the technical characteristics that influence those changes.
From this perspective, we need to consider how social circumstances give rise to certain kinds of technologies. We need to look at what possibilities and constraints different technologies offer. We need to think about the actual ways that we use these technologies. As we adopt, use, reject, and rework technologies in our daily lives, we are contributing to the opening and closing of possibilities.
We’ll end with about some of the ways that Rheingold suggests we can take action:
“Pay attention to opportunities you might be given to improve the public sphere. It’s not up to anybody else. Apply crap detection when you encounter political assertions, including those you agree with, especially online. Learn to participate in political discussions online and strive to raise the level of debate in the social media public sphere. Contest positions, don’t attack people; cite evidence and be willing to change your mind. Collaborate with others to advocate, persuade, and organize; join informed collective action. If you aren’t an actor in a democracy, you are the acted on. Know how networks of power and counterpower work, and seek to understand your place in them” (Rheingold, p.242).
In the coming units, we will focus more closely on the ways that we can shape and re-shape the digital networks and technologies that are becoming more and more a part of our lives. We will explore how we can use these tools to build the e-Community – a way of thinking about these technologies as supporting our families, friends, neighbours, and colleagues. The e-Community framework seeks to design and use new technologies to support community and economic development. It draws on the resources and strengths held by individuals and communities. It puts communities at the First Mile during our race to shape new digital futures.