These are responses to Guide questions on David Bell's Introduction to Section nine of Cybercultures Reader.
1. With Bell, we arrive at questions regarding the viability of cyberspace as a transnational experience. What do you believe are the most important or most engaging questions that he raises or that he suggests some of the contributors to this section raise?
One question which struck me was the way that the American basis for the net what dismissed outright. As if Americanization was, without question, a bad thing. With the question of whether cyberspace will be a "world with no bounadries", what country nowadays will be the template for cyberspace? It may probably be American, which sends some people into epileptic fits becuase they see America as a cultureless wasteland devoid of a soul. But I see it as a good thing. There are many great things about America that should probably copied into cyberspace. Especially our experiments with tryint to maintain diversity while staying a whole nation. This would give space to minority viewpoints, which is a concern about cyberspace. I could see some difficulties with cultures being blended online, especially if people had to act differently in order to conform to the standards on the internet. But cultures change, shift over time. Nothing is static. And there are worse things in life. Harsh, and I know I can probably only say that freely because it is not my culture that may be lost (although, I could certainly argue that part of my culture is lost because of overly-sensitive types who demonize dead white males, and say America has no culture...).
2. Assess and interpret Bell's opening quote of Ziauddin Sardar. What kind of critique of American culture (particularly American cyberculture) is suggested by this quote?
I do not know of Ziauddin Sarder, and am ignorant of his work. So I could be interpreting this wrong, in a knee-jerk reaction. But I see the phrase "White man's burden", and I get annoyed. (Probably not for reasons you may think, either.) It ussually refers back to Manifest Destiny, and implies that "White man"'s only purpose in life is to try to tame savages, and is generally a negative protrayal of American culture. As if Americans want only to forcefully "civilise" savages. While I certainly see the point- that western culture is one of conquest, I have news- so is every single culture out there. Very few are about peace (most of those were wiped out by the warmongers). And peaceful societies today have only been able to afford that luxury in recent times. War is a neccesity at times- so is conquest and civilization.
One thing that made me happy about the quote was that white man needs to democratise. This brings one of the nice things about America into focus. Yes, we are preoccupied with some ideals. Like democracy. But these ideals are nice to have on the internet. So the quote may be far nicer than my first impression. But I still see the suggestion that America is actively persuing these goals. While this may be the case, I don't see it as such. Amercians possess control mainly becuase it was originally an American thing, and more Americans are online. Americans just came in, did their own thing, without much thought to others. It wasn't an active conquest, it just seemed to happen. It's not so much a "moral obligation" as something that just happened. Perhaps if it were more premeditated, more could be done to control it. But it really isn't, and that may be why so much is going on so quickly.
3. Respond to Barwell and Bowles' notion that the internet is the new frontier. Do they express optimism or pessimism with regard to this idea?
I would say more hesitance than anything else. They agree that much can be happening which cannot be fully described in terms of nationalism. The here vs there metaphor may no longer work. But this does not mean that America is creating a cyberspace where it, and its ideals, reign supreme. Even if America cannot physical dominate cyberspace, it has already created a climate in cyberspace where American culture reigns. It is difficult for others to engage in cyberspace without subverting their culture to America's.
And it is not as much a western-culture dominance thing, either. Even other members of western culture could be corrupted. Barwell and Bowles mention "Second-world" governments like Australia and Canada. (They use the term "second-world", I believe, to refer to countries which were originally settler colonies. This is odd to me, for I have only heard the term refer to developed communist countries.).
The internet is not so much national, and should not be viewed as such. But identity, helped defined by national identity. Identity can be buried in the larger picture, which can be harmful. It's numbers, really- there are just more of the majority than there is of the minority. (duh). So the minority may not be as able to raise its voice. I don;t see it as much, because of the vatst number of places for people to hang out. There are enough groups and such which are not dominated by America to allow people to express their own interest. There is not one big internet that everybody belongs to, but numerous little groups.
4. Do you believe that the internet can now or may someday be capable of displacing nationalities?
No. Not really nationalities. Cultures, maybe. But I feel that nationality is a far too physical thing. You grow up, or at least make some sort of conscious decision to be, a certain nationality. It is very much who you are. Your culture may change becuase of the sharing of ideas can lead to homogenation, especially if people agree, at least unconsciously, that common ways of thinking are adventageous. I do not know enough on the topic to argue the point to strongly, but there could be advantges to cultural homogenaity. There could be one culture that is better than the others. To dismiss this premise as false without arguing it out is folly. American culture may not be the best, and it may not even win out. But maybe the basic fears that minority cultures could get lost are missing the point. The real question may be whether it is a bad thing if the cultures get lost.