In Progress

In 2005, the Center for Strategic and International Studies published a report looking at information and communication technologies (ICT) and national identity politics. The research was initiated by the National Intelligence Council, a think tank within the US government. Written by Sandra Braman, a Professor of Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the report aims to provide policymakers in the US with a framework for understanding how emerging ICTs could impact global development, particularly in regards to issues of national identity and politics of power, with a particular focus on how dual-use technologies offer potential for greater social cohesion as well as stronger challenges to the authority of the state.

Braman’s main thesis unites the national backdrop and individual engagement to create an argument about how future developments in both arenas could result in stronger relationships between individuals and the nation-state, or just as possible, could weaken identification with the nation and thus a weaker national security environment. Braman explores how the increasing technical capacity of ICTs, a shift in the global network map to favor regions previously little regarded, and a general lack of knowledge about vulnerabilities and potentialities of these ICTs combine to create a new set of national security concerns for the US. Braman then narrows in further on the impact on the individual by examining new features that impact political engagement on the individual level: increased communication capacity, the ability for individuals to create and distribute content, and the emerging practice of activism across various media channels.

Braman’s argument is at its foundation based on the assumption that maintaining a strong national identity is essential to protecting national security. Similarly, her argument assumes that trust is a central component of identity or affiliation with an imagined community. She argues that in a best-case scenario, social cohesion is afforded by “trust in the authoritative knowledge of the nation-state and, therefore, decisions made by the US government” and at the other extreme, trust would be limited to small intimate groups and would result in “a growing reliance on nonrational modes of argument and decisionmaking.” One of the report’s most provocative scenarios lies in its description of alternative forms of citizenship. Cultural citizenship, global citizenship and thin citizenship are proposed as alternatives to national citizenship, which brings with it a set of political affiliations.

The report also presents software applications which facilitate forms of one-to-one and one-to-many communication. Braman makes the point that decreasing transparency in the federal government and increased surveillance of individuals has a damaging impact on trust. This is a very cogent point. The current administration (which changed after this report was written) has made a priority out of reversing this dynamic in an obvious attempt to restore trust in the federal government. See the data-driven Recovery.gov with its tagline “Track the Money.”

In describing the global context of emerging ICTs, the report focuses on threatening global examples like how China was unable to suppress the Tiananmen Square demonstrations and how Muslim extremists are able to organize online. When looking at the individual level, the report takes more positive examples of increased agency from US academics like Clay Shirky to describe the redrawn map of communication and power. While overall the arguments are extremely compelling and have already been borne out in many ways in 2010, the focus on threats to national security limit the scope of the report to reinforcing the national identity. Organizations like Avaaz and Amnesty International provide positive examples of global citizenship, while growing diasporas present cultural forms of citizenship that reshape global politics in less than threatening ways. Less positive examples of internal discord within the US among individuals are also ignored. Recent examples include challenges to the authority of the Obama administration on media services like Twitter and Facebook that have attracted attention from the Department of Homeland Security. Because of this narrow focus and selective examples, the report, while astute in its analysis, presents only a limited set of conclusions that reinforce the US’s historically isolationist attitude.

Posted on April 3rd, 2010 by DeepthiW
Filed under: Global Culture, Politics, School