#FirstWorldProblems...Internet & Democracy

In response to "The Daily We" by Cass Sunstein -- I could not help but think that this was a very ethnocentric perspective on the effect the Internet is having on democracy. Sunstein was concerned with individuals limiting the public sphere by streamlining their information. In all honestly, this sounds like a #FirstWorldProblem. Let us stop and think about the countries that do not have the resources to even share ideas due to a lack of infrastruture. According to this 2011 article, 70% of the world does not even have access to Internet. http://news.yahoo.com/disconnected-70-percent-world-doesnt-internet-despite-rising-201836035.html. It does not seem entirely coincidental that the countries that are recognized for their democracy fit into the 30% of the world that has Internet access.

Then, let us take this idea a step further and consider the countries where "black holes" exist in regards to government censorship. In these cases, the use of the Internet is prohibited because they are afraid of the very thing that Sunstein warns us of losing...the public sphere. The governments are looking to slow the growth and exchange of ideas and the best way they know how to do that is through Internet censorship. Honestly, this seems like a counter-intuitive claim when we look at this idea with a global perspective. Movements for democracy and justice such as Kony 2012 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_Ue6REkeTA) would not be feasible without the use of the Internet. There is no other way to spread ideas and raise awareness globally more efficiently than the Internet. All in all, the Internet and free use of it has become a hallmark of democracy, not lack thereof.

Face to Face...A response to Islamophobia

After having the privilege of listening to the profound ideas of Deepa Kumar, I could not help but replay a few of her quotes in my head. In particular, it was this statement in reference to Islamophobia, "Face to face contact breaks it" that really resonated with me. Currently, I work with a group of 12 international students at the College of DuPage. They are actually all studying and living in the United States on a grant funded by the U.S. State Department. Some people may be bothered to learn this information considering the current situation of many American citizens. With that, I realize that the mission of the state department in choosing 'underserved and underrepresented' from countries like Pakistan, Egypt, and India is very strategic on both ends. It comes down to forming relationships by breaking borders, misconceptions, and stereotypes. When we speak of "them" in a very distant sense, we are forgetting their humanity -- a key point that was made by Kumar. In my situation, I have seen the discussions between people from very different backgrounds and I have seen the progress that has been made. While, it is obvious that there are subjects where people have to 'agree to disagree', I am constantly reminded of the importance of intercultural education and building relationships with people who may be very different. All in all, I have seen the incalculable benefits of 'face to face' contact in humanizing others' ideas, beliefs, and values.

The Weatherman Metaphor

There is one person in nearly everyone's life that we have learned to forgive. In Chicago, they have names like Tom, Amy, and Bill. We will listen to what they have to say every morning and even adjust our wardrobe to match their advice. We enjoy the excitement they can bring of a developing snow storm and we can easily forgive as class remains far from canceled. While we hope for accuracy, we do not ever let ourselves expect it. The truth is, we know that their guess it better than ours...which is exactly the same mentality we have towards the public intellectuals in our lives. Public Intellectuals, while often wrong, are more than often forgiven. Public Intellectuals, like Meteorologists, have more credentials and expertise on a subject matter, which is why it is difficult to cut them out of our lives.  If we did, we would just be left with our lonely thoughts to form opinions on subjects far outside our knowledge base. When they are wrong, we assume that their inside knowledge led them to a certain decision and from there their mistake is justified and forgiven.  Who are we as everyday consumers of the public sphere to judge those that we idolize for their knowledge, credentials, and talents? We chose to forgive because we know we would also want to be forgiven. So, when asked, "Who are the public intellectuals of 2012" they are the Toms, the Amys, and the Bills. They are the people who simply have an expertise on a subject matter that we lack. And yes, we forgive, because what other choice do we have?

The Contemporary Public Sphere: Settling for Simplicity

"From organs of public opinion to agents of propaganda" -- a strong accusation of today's news media. The question that thus follows is a blaming game. Are we, as the people, responsible for demanding otherwise or do we have yet no other choice? As consumers, we may have the right to fight the major media conglomerates, but the real question is, "do we have the power?" In my opinion, the true trouble with public discourse or lack thereof, is simple naivety and/or ignorance. If we are not provided with information outside "our Naperville bubble" -- how do we begin to know the challenging questions to ask, unless we make a conscious effort to seek it out otherwise? We operate in a time-driven world where we need news that is quick, to the point, and purely simple. Some of us -- many of us, do not have the time or make the time to ask the really difficult questions that exist in the world. The questions of diminishing resources, war, starvation, and genocide may be the subjects that need the most attention, but lack presence. And yes, this is of concern. As human beings, how do we justify having more interest in a celebrity's latest break-up versus the undeniable existence of global warming. It seems as if we strive for simplicity and focusing our attention on issues that are easier to cope with. People already complain, "there is no good news", but imagine if we were talking about the real issues that face our world. In order for progress to occur, public discourse must exist. Claiming naivety can only worsen the problems with the passing of time. As one can see, I am concerned for the fate of public life until the media starts challenging us to think about the bigger issues or until we start demanding those in the media to talk about the true issues. A vicious cycle will continue until someone stops settling for simplicity. The world will not progress without adding a dimension of complexity and asking others to expand their minds in search of solutions.