In The Wired Neighborhood, Stephen Doheny-Farina is concerned primarily with the Internet’s ability to build communities and bring people together form disparate and distant locations. He wonders, if there are potentially democratic underpinnings inherent in the technology, exactly what kind of "democracy" would this worldwide confluence of opinion and participation look like? He argues that globalization will lead to the further destruction of local communities and the important role they play in a democratic society. He suggests that we use the Internet to foster local cohesion as much as possible. It is only through this local use that we may have a potential to extend community-building to larger, possibly global spheres.

     Doheny-Farina defines "public" as shared beliefs "shaped by economies that focus our attention on national and global matters." He argues that what we have passing for that now is "merely an aggregation of individual consumers."

Neil Postman

Doheny-Farina's "public" is also a rather concise definition of "ideology."

     He writes (recall Turkle):

     "I do not doubt that virtual experimentations with the self and with the relations of that self can be liberating. But I can’t help feeling that the situations that call for these benefits reflect deficiencies in our geophysical communities. The institutions, the families, and the social relations of our offline lives are unable to include and celebrate those who are different, to care for and heal those who are hurting. If the net becomes the only recourse, then our geophysical communities are lost"

     Doheny-Farina also points out that no matter how much discussion goes on over the internet, at present, significant problems exist with this type of discourse: 

     "In this cacophony, issues are cheap, opinions are cheap, and strong reasons and evidence are hidden or compromised by the sheer amount of discussion. The net is so vast and omni-vocal that the power of any one voice is lost and most of what is discussed never goes beyond the net."

     What Doheny-Farina wants to see is local networks where those we e-mail, or whose web-sites we visit in the morning are the same people we meet and talk to in person that afternoon. He wants us to have a clear idea who we are talking to, and the importance of dealing with real, identifiable human beings, not imaginary ones. For Doheny-Farina, the Internet must be used to enhance communities, or it has the potential to obliterate them. Following Habermas, there is a unique public sphere created on the Internet, but not one where we sit in coffeehouses looking each other in the eye as we talk. The anonymity may breed hostility, or at least a lack of compassion and understanding for others. Maybe it is more difficult, or impossible to know if the person at the other end of the modem is toying with us, being deceptive, or dishonest.

     Another concern that Doheny brings up is that the net "increases the babble of special interests" and is not leveling and democratic in any true sense. Doheny may be absolutely right. The question is, are we excited about speaking on the Internet, or are we excited about listening? Instead of the Internet encouraging us to work together as a smoothly functioning, cooperative society we may use it to dig in and further fragment along increasingly complex ideological lines. There is nothing democratic in thousands of disparate voices bickering back and forth at each other without ever "sitting down at the table" and actually interacting, or arriving at a decision.  I think Doheny would agree that we have enough fragmentation going on now, without any need to speed it up or further it with computers. 

     Doheny -Farina's ideas about bias on the web are substantiated and expanded upon in the work of feminist scholar Pam Takayoshi. Writing in Building New Networks from the Old, Takayoshi’s clear conclusion is that "patterns of interaction deeply entrenched within a patriarchal system cannot be undermined simply by offering access to a new medium." Takoyoshi, like Doheny-Farina realizes that we all arrive at the communicative act with a great deal of ideological baggage. What is suggested here is that we have an ingrained desire to view ourselves in relation to the other person along lines of power—dominance, or submission, as the case may be. Any leveling effect of electronic communications is problematized by the fact that we will quickly conjure up these relationships in order to proceed with any level of confidence in our interaction. 

     In an imaginary room where everyone is talking at once (and where we are free from outright coercion) we would hear only the loudest voice, or we move closest to the one(s) that interest us. So, in a "free" society, we either listen only to what we can hear, or we decide who will "win" our attention.  If we all agree with the loudest voice, things are fine and we can consider our political system a great success.   If not, we argue, and the most convincing argument dominates, even if--and, regretably, especially if--that argument threatens us with a loss of personal safety or security if we don't agree.  In short, when all the theorizing is said and done, we do what we need to do to survive in the political and social climate that we exist in.  There is a third option, and I think this is mainly what Doheny fears--and this is not to listen at all.  Without paying attention to the reasons for the existence of the systems of dominance we live within, we ensure the dominance of the powerful, who have proven that they will, facing no opposition, most certainly continue along their vectors, regardless of the rest of us.  This includes further exploitation of others, and more scams and rip-offs (witness HMO's) to bleed the public of what should be fundamental rights in an incredibly wealthy society--like health care, decent emloyment, housing, etc.  The problem is all the wealth and power is so concentrated in the hands of so few who are so tyrannical.  What I think Doheny-Farina is suggesting is that we need to use this technology to interact with one another at a "grass-roots" level and see if we have any common ground beyond our superficial personal tastes.  We need to use the computer to organize and make beneficial societal decisions.  That is the only way common citizens have ever gained any ground in the past, and we shouldn't expect the future to be somehow miraculously different as the result of computer technology. 

     A more focused concern is that with many more cranks and lunatics "publishing" on the Internet, claiming "independent publisher" status, the already embattled prestige given to the independent publisher will lessen.  I'm thinking of militia groups, seperatists, Nazi skinheads, NAMBLA, etc.  If these people can find common ground and strike out some basic organizing principals, as suggested above, they may call enough attention to themselves to foster a conservative backlash calling for censorship of their material or removal from the Internet. This could most certainly give small publishers a bad name. It is wise to remember that this country was founded by Puritans who may not have come here so much to avoid persecution, as to have a crack at persecuting others themselves.  After all, for many, that's where the real fun in life seems to be.

     There are many groups in our society who will actively seek out what they dislike, regardless of the context in which it appears, and work to eradicate it. This can be accomplished by harassing a publication’s advertisers, by putting pressure on owners and distributors, or by seeking political clout and legislation. These tactics often work. Many of these options exist in an online environment as well. Internet providers can be harassed, and a political solution can always be sought by pushing for regulation. The Internet will not take away many people’s self-righteous belief that they should dictate what is best for everyone else. These people may become very frightened by what the Internet represents to them, and, as a result, drastically step up their efforts at a political level, making it more and more difficult to express unpopular or misunderstood viewpoints in all forums, not just the Internet.

     On the other hand, there is great potential online for independent publishers and other groups to build communities, share ideas and work towards increased acceptance of diversity. As Doheny-Farina suggests, local, community-based net use could be a great boon to democracy and freedom of speech. The key is, again, are we--as an entire society--willing to listen as much as we are willing to talk?    This is a choice that needs to be made above and beyond technological advancement, and one that is sadly being overlooked. 

End of section.         Read next section.        View site map.