Networked Culture
In relation to Colemans article Remixing Citizenship, I thought it showed most cogently the positive potential of the Internet in terms of the power it gives lay people (citizens) and grass roots organizations a stage to voice their opinions. By moving politics online, people can have access to a diverse amount of divergent information that they ordinarily would not have access to through mainstream channels. The internet gives people the space for online communication and interactive dialogue.
This essay flipped the top down model on its head by saying that it was politics that needed to change not the youth. By giving young people a say in how information is disseminated and in what way it is presented, politics will eventually become more relevant for the technologically astute generations.
The main problem I see with this hypothesis is that in order for politics to be restructured, old hierarchies must be given up first; if this is to happen power will have to be forcefully taken not given. Those who are in power are not going to give it up quite that easily. What do they have to gain by letting youth have more power within modern institutions? By giving youth power they are essentially giving power to all those groups that have ordinarily be marginalized by the mainstream Western ethos (i.e. radicals, revolutionaries and dissenters). I think the voices of many of the young people in this article show that they don’t want to engage in politics because they see it as pointless and boring; they want to change the system so that it works for them, instead of them working for it. This kind of fundamental change seems a long way off.
I like your thinking, and you’re right, power does need to be taken because it won’t be given; at least in a modern capitalist democracy. Look at New Zealand: can anyone tell the difference between National and Labour? Or for that matter damn near any of the political parties. Apart from the Maori party and The Greens they are all conservative organisations run by middle aged white men (Helen Clark acts like a middle aged white man), and you’re right, they won’t give power to passionate, courageous and revolutionary young people, even though they are the ones who should be in power.
I say that because Jesus was wrong; it won’t be the meek who will inherit the earth, it’s the young. The decisions being made RIGHT NOW are going to have a much greater long term impact on you than on me (a middle aged white man). My generation won’t give you the controls of the planet, you have to take it, but before that happens your generation needs to want to take control, and my generation are doing a brilliant job of stopping that from happening. We have lent you the money to learn the skills you need to rule, so you owe us. We have also made you want to travel, buy flash cars, cellphones, stereos etc, and we have given you credit cards and HP to make that happen. We have also made sure that property prices are so high for you to buy your own home, you need to be so heavily in debt that you are tied down.
So we have you as heavily in debt to us as possible, and we have all-but taken away the right to own property which means you will never have the power to take control. You will dance to our tune while we spend your inheritance, then when we die it will be your problem.
I enjoy what you say, who are you in class?
I reckon Davids comment is really funny and accurate. Think about it if you want to take power you really have to willing to sacrfice things you have and put it all on the line. Do you want to do it? Sacrfice your credit rating, the chance to get a good job at an accounting firm? I no i’m not willing to. Maybe what it is gonna take is someone or someones who are so down and out anyway that risking it to take power would be a step up. But if there is someone like that where are they?
I really don’t seee it happening. When those of us who are young get in the position to have a say we will be 45 years old and the next generation of youth will be wanting to push us out. It really is just a vicious cycle.
The down and outers, you make a great point. Most of the movements that have brought about social change have been instigated by those who are experiencing relative deprivation or rising expectations followed by a drop in standards of living. In other words, suffering. Much of the time it is economic problems that force people to act, as you mentioned. This has been discussed on other posts as well. How do you motivate people to change if they are comfortable? This is one reason why terrorists do what they do. The logic seems to be: If comfortable people in oppressive states are to push for changes in policies, the people must be forced into an uncomfortable position where they must engage with the problems, ie fear, death, inconvenience at airports. Only then will people pay attention to other’s suffering.
As you attest to, this problem is contributing to the possibilities for what will happen here and all over the world, people will be forced, by thier own unwillingness to engage with the need for change, to suffer first.