Image by lisby1 via Flickr
Social Networks and Modern Communications Through the Lens of Political Philosophy
The unique lens that I bring to my study of political science is that of a background in information technology. For this reason I often find it interesting to apply political theories to a more modern society with the various methods of communication which are now available through the use of technology. I find the theories of Hobbes, Arendt, and Foucault particularly interesting when viewed through this lens.
Hobbes basically argues that brute strength is the ultimate power behind political power and that power is a measure of ones ability to impose their will on another. This is interesting when applied to modern communication infrastructures which allow individuals with the necessary intellectual power to take on much larger and more physically powerful organizations in an international political arena. The same group divisions exist within this arena and there is a competition for scarce resources which, according to Hobbes, will naturally necessitate a Leviathan to avoid complete anarchy. However, it seems that this new communication infrastructure has lead to an increase in opportunities while at the same time tipping the balance to favor the more intellectually powerful rather than the physically powerful. There is much more to be studied and considered in this area, as well as many other ways of viewing this political arena. However, on the surface, it seems that Hobbes theories may not apply here.
The idea of political space and the theory behind it which is discussed by Arendt is very easily applied to modern communication systems, specifically blogs. A blog is a web based log, basically the idea is that an individual or organization posts their ideas or content online and allows for some amount of discussion around those posts. This idea can be modified to suit the needs of the individual or organization and therefore provides for a near limitless array of possibilities. This applies to Arendt in the process of considering the outcomes of these choices in designing the blog. For example the designer may open the blog up to comments from anyone anywhere to say what ever they like, or they may close it entirely thereby limiting the site to only their posts without commentary. The openness of the comment system on the blog may be adjusted to any level within this spectrum and this is very similar to the creation of an open or closed political space in reality. Depending on the choices made in the design of a virtual or a physical political space the conversation can be contained and therefore controlled. Some opinions can be given precedence over others while others are removed from the discussion entirely. This applies to traditional communication systems as well as their more modern counter parts.
Foucault discusses the idea that a panopticon can be used as an organizational structure which will cause the members of the system to become self regulating through the development and modification of their souls. This is very interesting when applied to modern communication infrastructures such as social networking. Todays social networking sites blend contacts from groups of friends, family, and colleagues for good or for ill. On one side this allows for people to more easily see connections which may open doors to educational, economic, and social benefit. However, this also creates a panopticon in which the individual is providing the world with some level of access to their personal and public life. It is a blend of public and private space which requires some level of self regulation in order to avoid job loss or news headlines. I have not considered this application of Foucault’s ideas in any detail, but I think there could be many parallels drawn in this area.
I have enjoyed considering the application of these political theories to modern communications infrastructures which utilize technologies that were mostly unavailable when these theories were originated. Hobbes, Arendt, and Foucault are only three of the political theorists I have considered in this way and I think they are the three which are most easily understood in this context.
