[governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca
lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca
Tue Aug 30 04:25:08 EDT 2005
Hi all:
Language matters so I am glad to see this discussion. Here are some
additional reasons for supporting the use of 'netizen' and a few minor
reservations to consider:
In our project, the eCommons/agora (electronic commons, agora electronique),
we speak of netizens and the NetiZen News because we want to signal the
distinction between citizens online
( netizens) and consumers online (users).
We decided some time ago, quite independently, to adopt a term that we had
seen in casual use, netizen, explicitly in order to announce that we had
placed the stress on this citizen online role. Not the Internet as
destination shopping experience, the Internet as public space for community,
citizen and democratic life.
The problem with 'users' in English at least is that it brings to mind drug
users, or other sorts of consumers of things, takers, not givers, certainly
not people who produce and give and behave in the reciprocal and
interactive manner that the Internet makes possible.
Another reason for making the term netizen central to our eCommons/agora
project was to play up an active democratic role for the citizen and the
community, and the mutual shaping of tools for dialogue and democratic life
( especially between elections).
In fact, for some of us who theorize the term 'netizen,' the ground for this
figure of the netizen or online citizen is not polis but rather the commons
or electronic commons to be more exact. The idea behind this term e-commons
( in english) was to refer to the notion of a free, open, accessible,
usable, shared, available, affordable, place -- not a private enclosed
exclusive expensive space. So we tried to link these two terms (e-commons
and netizen) into a conceptual nexus in order to signal an aspiration for
the public Internet as e-commons, and an aspiration for the citizen online
as netizen. ( For the social scientists in the crowd, by using normative
language -- there *should* be an e-commons built by netizens -- to describe
the current situation, we hoped to avoid the closing of the earlier Internet
commons of the 1990s, and to encourage the outcome that many of us sought to
create in the 21st century).
Even if we speak about 'visitors' to our web projects, we speak not of
'users', but of 'interactors' or ' participants' - we really do not like
and do not use the term users.
Theorizing just a wee bit further, (Vital Links for a Knowledge Culture:
Public access to new information and communications technology ed. Jeffrey,
2001: Council of Europe) if we posit three main sectoral actors in a new
balance of power for e-governance, namely government, private sector, and
civil society, then arguably all actors in their capacity to engage in
meaningful participation in the world, local or national information society
are potential netizens.
Surely that is the point of what we are discussing at Wsis. It does not
matter if not everyone is now online.
Everyone will not be online, ever, and in some cases (as studies from
Trinidad and Russia show, for instance) things can work effectively in
terms of netizen participation when people who are not internet literate and
do not have direct internet access know who to go to when they wish to
communicate via the 'net. Every society works differently, and needs its own
metric.
But surely that is not the decisive factor in whether or not we use the term
'netizen' or 'user.'
Maybe we should consider using the term user when we mean a consumer who can
shop in the network of commercial possibilities, and reserve 'netizen' for
discussions of citizens online, with the skills and literacies to be a
producer, worker, democratic actor in the world information society at
whatever access point (local, regional, provincial, national).
This question is quite a live one for our project, as we are currently
redesigning our NetiZen News editorial and e-publishing (weblication)
platform (which was created in the eCommons/agora project from open source
components) as a fully open source (drupal) vehicle for community
development, creative engagement, and citizen participation in democratic
e-governance.
This means we have to watch our language. We have been actively involving
technical and non technical people in our summer experiments so have had
chances to see how this definitional debate plays out at least here in our
corner of Canada.
A couple of problems encountered, and admittedly not addressed by our
project's choice of 'netizen' :
- The term 'citizens' is not used by some in Canada because those who are
not citizens, like refugees and stateless and illegals and landed
immigrants are not included. We are not able to address this, but have
decided we prefer to stress citizen in opposition to consumer, and as
mentioned already the term user does not seem to get beyond the consumer -
drug user connotation.
- netizen does not translate well into french - one of our Montréal
associates told me the word sounded like dry cleaning. (nettoyage?) I
suggest that we english-speakers always ask our allo-phones to comment on
this issue.
So what happens to this term in German? I did not encounter major issues
with use of this term netizen when speaking in Germany (but everyone i met
spoke such excellent english - what about others?).
Finally one last negative:
- netizen has to be explained, as it is a neologism - but then the Internet
was a neologism not so long ago, so i do not mind this one so much. In fact,
I think we would do ourselves a favour if we as civil society (itself a very
contested concept, as others have also noted) did introduce some language
into Wsis, since as far as I can see playing it safe linguistically or any
other way at this point does not seem to be getting civil society anywhere.
My five cents
Liss Jeffrey, PhD
Founding director
eCommons/agora
& McLuhan global research network
University of Toronto
>From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
>To: Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com>
>CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
>Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:54:24 +0200
>
>
>
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >
> > Jeanette wrote:
> >
> >> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
> >> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
> >> were did the bread and butter work.
> >
> >
> > Sure there were problems with the greek polis, but a larger percentage
>of
> > people took part in the governing and the decisions relating to the
> > governing than most other times in the history of so called 'democracy'.
> >
> > So you can find all the problems with the Greek polis that did indeed
> > exist. But whether or not there were these problems, the question
> > remains Were a greater percentage of the population involved in
> > more of the democratic processes than at most other times in the
> > history of so called 'democracy'?
>
>Sorry, Ronda, I don't think this is the point. The fact that women and
>slaves were excluded makes the polis a non-democratic space. In a
>similar vein, it seems odd to me to celebrate the "netizen" although so
>many people have no or very restricted access to the net. Avri made this
>point very clear I think.
>To me, the netizen reflects an early period of the net when the user
>community was still very homogenous in terms of educational background,
>values and interests. These days are long gone, and the "user" seems to
>me to be the more adequate term.
>
>jeanette
>
> >
> > The participatory nature of the citizenship is the issue I am raising,
> > and the effort in the process of the citizenship to challenge that
> > the small set of others control what was happening in the Greek polis.
> >
> > We can't go back and correct what happened in the Greek polis, but
> > it would be good if we could learn from what was done right.
> >
> > The concept of netizen developed on the Net, as a description of what
> > people who were part of the grassroots of users recognized - they
> > wanted to spread the net to all as a communication infrastructure
> > and would be active doing so.
> >
> >> What makes me feel uncomfortable about the concept of
> >> netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the net.
> >
> >
> > It wasn't an elite, it was a form of social identity.
> >
> > When I got online, 10 people took the trouble to write me to help
> > me to be a contributing part of Net.
> >
> > This process meant led to the desire to give back to the Net once a
> > new person was able.
> >
> > This is some of what has been special about the Internet and its
> > development, and by losing track of that development, and focusing
> > on commercial interests and their needs and claims, this unique and
> > important social development represented by the Internet is lost
> > sight of.
> >
> >> But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I could
>substantiate.
> >
> >
> > Maybe that is why having a discussion like this can be helpful, as well
> > as trying to not focus on the current moment as the nature of the Net
> > but looking at the vision that made it possible to develop it and how
> > that vision evolved.
> >
> >> jeanette
> >
> >
> > I recently gave a talk as part of a symposium in Beijing on "Computer
> > Networks, the Internet and Netizens: Their Impact on Science and society
> > which was part of the 22nd International History of Science Conference.
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/beijing/talkjuly26.txt
> >
> > I then gave a more specific version of the talk when I went to Seoul,
> > Korea as in Korea there is 80% broadband access and many valuable
> > achievements of people who see themselves as netizens, such as electing
> > the a relatively unknown to become the President of South Korea,
> > through the online discussion and partcipation of many netizens in
> > 2000-2002.
> >
> > Also looking a Michael's article on "The Net and Netizens: the Impact
> > the Net has on People's Lives" may be of interest.
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x01
> >
> > Michael's preface to netizens is also relevant
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr
> >
> > This gives a way perhaps to explore what is new and significant about
> > the Internet and its development. That is a basis to begin to determine
> > an appropriate model for the management of the Internet's
>infrastructure.
> >
> > How the Internet developed and spread around the world is an important
> > piece of knowledge about the Internet.
> >
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ronda
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.
> >>>
> >>> And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
> >>> 'user' is appropriate.
> >>>
> >>> The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
> >>> more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
> >>> socially concerned notion of 'citizen'
> >>
> >>
> >> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
> >> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
> >> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable
> >> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of
> >> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression, nothing
> >> I could substantiate.
> >> jeanette
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
> >>> named 'netizen'.
> >>>
> >>> It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
> >>> for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The
> >>> 'netizen'
> >>> in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special
> >>> product of the Internet and its development, and any governance
> >>> structure would benefit from including 'netizens' as an important
> >>> part of its structure.
> >>>
> >>> In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
> >>> the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary
> >>> situation. A similar situation has been true in the development of
> >>> the Internet and it would be useful to understand this process and
> >>> support
> >>> its further development.
> >>>
> >>> Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social
> >>> contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to
> >>> determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's
> >>> infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
> >>> own development.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Ronda
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all
> >>>> people no matter whether they care about their country, the people
> >>>> and the constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds
> >>>> rather exlusive by comparison. It refers only to those "who care
> >>>> about the net". Not that I mind those/us people but I prefer the
> >>>> term "user" because it is more general and more inclusive. When I
> >>>> use the term user, I emphasize the great variety of those on the
> >>>> Internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> jeanette
> >>>>
> >>>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such
>an
> >>> McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about
>the
> >>>>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
> >>>>> is represented, both online and off.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
> >>>>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
> >>>>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
> >>>>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
> >>>>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
> >>>>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
> >>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
> >>>>>
> >>>>> its also available in a print edition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens
> >>>>> and need for the public interest to be represented in any
> >>>>> discussions or structures related to the management of the
> >>>>> internet's infrastructure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ronda
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Amen to all of the above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
> >>>>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> McTim
> >>>>>> nic-hdl: TMCG
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> governance mailing list
> >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list