Three years old? How dated.

In reading chapters three and five of Elizabeth Hanson's "The Information Revolution and World Politics," I found myself wondering at how dated her outlook on the internet feels. It seems that even over the course of three short years since this book was published, the internet has surpassed all expectations. Since 2007, the year of Hanson's most up to date figures in her book, the number of internet users worldwide has doubled to two billion and now some 30% of the world's population has some kind of access to the internet.

This is not a critique of Hanson, but rather an observation of the near futility of analyzing the potential of the internet. The speed by which its efficacy and penetration grows is, for a lack of a better word, ridiculous.

The information gap is closing, access to the internet is increasingly affordable everyday and we're now getting closer to developing affordable computers for the developing world as well. By affordable, we're talking for the same price as lunch and a drink in the Mary Graydon Center. The world of the internet right now does not seem to dissimilar from the scene Hanson painted of India during their television boom: cable companies sprouting every which way, tying cable lines to trees, lamp posts and anything else standing still.

Hanson notes Bill Gates' point that having a laptop won't help somebody who's starving to death and they're right, internet access is not a silver bullet for world peace and prosperity. However, access to the internet opens avenues of completely unexplored potential to everybody.

Three years from now, where will the internet be? What about two? Will access to broadband internet be considered a natural human right? Free wifi for everybody? Tom Clancy predicted a world where people done virtual reality headgear and literally surf the internet in his futuristic spy series Net Force. Far-fetched? Time will tell.

Forgoing Diaspora Ties for Nation-State Identity

As international communication professionals, we are often tasked with the responsibility to enhance relationships between a nations leaders and its public. Within this relationship building, lie integral factors such as culture and ethnicity that if left unacknowledged, can impede the process. Considering those factors, communication professionals have a unique role in accurately aligning the nations interest with its citizens and on the other hand, aligning the interest of its citizens with the nations agenda. This complex task is further compounded when one seeks to include citizens of a Diaspora.

According to Karim H. Karim’s, Re-viewing the ‘national’ in ‘international communication’ Through the lens of diaspora, individuals belonging to a diaspora share common ancestry and are “also often viewed as [citizens of] nations that have become deterritorialised.” Within nations, diasporas play a critical role in unifying groups of people by establishing a common connection through shared history, heros, language, and food among other things. Take the Latino community in America for instance, a controversially dubbed diaspora which at 43 million, makes up the largest minority group in the country. Though several academicians have argued whether or not Latino Americans can be justifiably called a diaspora, one thing is clear: in 2011 the majority of US Latinos maintain cultural ties that connect them to their ancestral land.

Despite an avid push to maintain ancestral linkages, years of assimilation, acculturation as well as daily socialization makes cultural preservation challenging. In the case of Latino Americans, the racial discrimination members of this group face leads some to attempt to assimilate to the race of the majority.[1] When analyzing the goal of nation-states overall, it can be assessed that the overarching goal is to have groups-especially those belonging to a diaspora- forgo their connection to their ethnic roots and instead adopt the cultural homogeneity of the nation. As Karim writes, “[historically] states played a key role in eliminating differences and imposing one culture. Whether through state sponsored institutions (schools, military service, national holidays) or private and civic associations” or through state sponsored discrimination (Arizona SB1070) it is apparent that America is working to strengthen its national identity and unite citizens under one homogenous umbrella.

---

[1] Outcomes of Assimilation and Discrimination: The Case of Hispanics in America at the Dawn of the 21st century by. Emily P. Estrada, B.A

The Many Faces of Diaspora

I was excited to further learn about the many facets and faces of diaspora during our recent class discussion. I am particularly interested in diaspora and it's impact on development. Diaspora can be very effective and powerful if organized correctly. Diaspora heavily rests on the strength of the community. Most of these groups are small and lack the resources to adequately give back to their homeland. I am interested in finding out how the United States plans to engage diaspora to provide development assistance.
I think USAID could greatly benefit from engaging Diaspora. The diaspora can provide significant primary information that cannot be gathered from many sources. There is a great deal of mistrust amongt the United States and foreigners. I know that the U.S. seeks to form a more harmonious relationship with foreign governments and the populations they serve. Although they are extremely effective, there are always better ways to strengthen engagement. In addition to our many missions abroad, I think even more emphasis can be placed on interacting with the many diaspora's that reside in America.
By utilizing this untapped resource, the U.S.can strengthen bi-lateral communication,increase trade and provide direct assistance to foreign nations. The U.S. would then be able to harness the power to implement sustainable cooperation and create a better environment for promoting U.S foreign interests in a creative and more convenient way.

Facebook Nation?

Can Facebook be considered a nation? A recent article in the Economist suggests just that.  The article examines Facebook as an imagined community that developed through horizontal ties. Although Facebook has no land, army, or governing body the article ponders whether or not those ties are necessary in defining a Facebook nation. Mark Zucherburg, the creator of Facebook can be compared to the leader of this nation.

The Karim reading suggested that a nation has a set of myths and rituals to qualify as a nation. Many Facebook users consider checking Facebook as a ritual, and a shared experience. Reading newspapers, and books has been a ritualistic experience, which defines a nation.  Newspaper readership is on the decline while Facebook usage has reached over 500 million.  Facebook exists internationally, and has connected users worldwide, is this the future of nations?

As was discussed in class nations require a shared sense of destiny, I don’t believe this exists on a platform like Facebook. Although users engage in a shared sense of ritual, the actions are very individualistic. Facebook users in Zambia, do not have shared sense of destiny with users in Canada. When Egyptian Facebook members used the site to mobilize the population, their national ties were increased, but the Facebook community could not share in this experience.

I think the idea of Facebook nation is interesting way to define what one considers a nation, although a true nation is a long time coming.

Identity

Our class readings were really interesting, I found. I especially enjoyed them because they dealt with the issue of identity. This is something that I have always pondered. I shared an anecdote today in class and at the risk of being crude, to steal a line, I shall repeat myself.
I am American born and raised but my father's family is from southern Germany. Since they immigrated, they have remained 100% German. Growing up, our Christmases were full of German tradition. My father lost much of the language because his father fought for the US in WWII and would not allow German to be spoken. I have always felt a deep connection with the language. The words are, after all, the words that my forefathers spoke to express themselves. I have always had something in me that wanted so much to make those sounds and scribe those symbols. It was essential that I learn and retake this part of who I am. So, I did. I studied German very intensely and even took a semester at the University in Berlin. I loved every second of it. I finally felt like I had connected with my roots.
Last summer, while in southern Germany, I was with friends. I was declaring proudly that I was German through and through. I could speak the language. I understood the history and customs. I enjoyed every facet of life there; from waking to falling back asleep. One night, while having a drink or two (as we Germans do), I overheard a conversation about "stupid America." Spurred on by the liquid bread, I shocked myself by turning around and getting in the speaker's face. I was American again, through and through. It was odd.
My point is, I think that identity can be very volitile. It depends on the situation, sometimes.
I also feel that the way the communication works in this "globalized" era has so much to do with the marketing of identity. Are we not reminded daily that we are American? We see ads about political candidates. We see ads and hear news reports about our soldiers advancing and protecting our interests abroad. We are reminded in very subtle ways that we are Americans. It's not out and out propoganda. It's not something that dismisses other identity sources, but it does seem to hold its own agenda (again - not that that's a bad thing, necessarily).
I am only one guy, though. So let me know other ways in which you might think this "marketing" has permeated your mind. Or let me know I'm wrong.

Blogging

I'm not really one to blog. In fact, I don't care for it. The whole buzz over "social media" has become a bit too trendy. Sometimes it seems to me that what we use here as a way to keep up with what parties we're attending over the weeking is being used in more dire situations around the world. I can't honestly deny the facility of the internet in Egypt. And there it really did allow people to coordinate and unite. I get it. I just don't know if blogging here in the USA has the same meaning. Sometimes I feel that this super-imposed requirement to blog is just that: super-imposed.
I am, however, open to new things and will give this a shot.
When I thought about it, I did realize that there is something very appealing about being able to voice opinion and, especially here, it can sometimes go unnoticed that such freedoms exist. When I thought about blogging in this light, it did honestly make me curious to try it out as an exersice in my amendment rights. The founders of this nation did make a point to ensure this freedom for me, after all. So maybe I should see what tools are available to me.
The ironic thing is, I'm an IC major. I should be exploring all I can about this channel that has always been so very open to me. So this first blog is a humble one. Here I am: a communications major trying out a form of communication that the rest of the world has utilized for such a long time. Yes, it would seem I still have much to learn.

A reflection on nationalism in media post 9/11

The Waisbord reading this week got me thinking about nationalism and patriotism in the media. Unless I read it wrong, the author time and again makes the point that media has little impact on national identity. However, what about the other way around? Rather than looking to influence people through media, we can instead get a sense of the sense of belonging within a nation. In other words, popular media in particular is a bellwether of the public feeling of nationalism.

A perfect example of this is television coverage of baseball. Before 9/11 studio analysis would continue until and sometimes through the first pitch of the game. Afterwards, it became common practice for the national anthem to get full coverage and substantial pageantry came along with it including, people waving flags, fireworks and even F-16 flyovers. Similarly, the seventh inning stretch was seen by networks previously as an opportunity for a few extra advertisements during the commercial break. Today, at places like Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park to name two, coverage continues as the crowd is led in singing "God Bless America."

The media is, at least for the most part, out to sell to the public. Whether they're selling papers or air time, most are designed to make a profit. They react to public sentiment more quickly and effectively than they could ever shape it.

A perfect example of this is television coverage of baseball. Before 9/11 studio analysis would continue until and sometimes through the first pitch of the game. Afterwards, it became common practice for the national anthem to get full coverage and substantial pageantry came along with it including, people waving flags, fireworks and even F-16 flyovers. Similarly, the seventh inning stretch was seen by networks previously as an opportunity for a few extra advertisements during the commercial break. Today, at places like Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park to name two, coverage continues as the crowd is led in singing "God Bless America." A perfect example of this is television coverage of baseball. Before 9/11 studio analysis would continue until and sometimes through the first pitch of the game. Afterwards, it became common practice for the national anthem to get full coverage and substantial pageantry came along with it including, people waving flags, fireworks and even F-16 flyovers. Similarly, the seventh inning stretch was seen by networks previously as an opportunity for a few extra advertisements during the commercial break. Today, at places like Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park to name two, coverage continues as the crowd is led in singing "God Bless America."

The media is, at least for the most part, out to sell to the public. Whether they're selling papers or air time, most are designed to make a profit. They react to public sentiment more quickly and effectively than they could ever shape it.