Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Finding the Right Balance

New communication technologies have enabled many people from many parts of the country to all have a conversation together simultaneously. Technologies such as e-mail and instant messenger have, in a sense, shrunken the public sphere. The limitations of time and space have become meaningless as communication has few boundaries. The question we must ask ourselves is, do these new technologies contribute or hinder our ability to be politically engaged? I personally believe that technologies, such as the internet, both contribute and hinder out ability to be politically engaged. The internet allows us to connect and share ideas with others we normally wouldn’t communicate with, but at the same time we are isolated from others because we are not physically with them. The internet keeps us alone in a room with a computer instead of actively participating in face-to-face political engagement.

Many of my relatives live in different parts of the country. Besides seeing them for the occasional Thanksgiving or Christmas, I used to have relatively little contact with them. The introduction of e-mail has completely changed the way I communicate with them. I now have regular weekly conversations with many of them where we discuss weather, sports, and political issues. The internet has enabled me to become more connected with my family, but it still does not replace physically being with them. Given the alternative of not communicating with them at all, e-mail has made communicating with my family easier and more convenient. Speaking about my ability to be politically engaged, I know I am a quiet person who usually has a lot to say, but I’m not always willing to stand up and say it. When I am anonymous, the fear of being criticized or embarrassed disappears for me. Political deliberation, thus, becomes easier for me in an online world. I have the confidence to express my views and beliefs because I am just a name on a computer to everyone else in the chat room. In that regard, the internet has allowed me, personally, to be more civically and politically engaged. All things considered, technology has definitely improved how I communicate, but the internet can be a double-edged sword, as it has a serious drawback.

The major problem with online communication is that the internet can breed isolation. When we communicate online, we are usually alone in a room with a computer. When I think about the definition of participation, I envision people working and sharing ideas with others in face-to-face conversations. If I were to enter a chat room and discuss a political issue with others, I would remain an anonymous screen name to everyone in that room. The presentation of my ideas would also suffer because tone, emotion, and passion are much more difficult to express in text than in face-to-face conversation. That is a serious difficulty with online communication. While technology has opened our world to new possibilities and ways of communicating, it has closed another world where people would meet together and deliberate face-to-face.

New technologies have provided us with new ways of communicating and becoming politically engaged. The trick, however, is to balance online communication with face-to-face communication. We cannot allow ourselves to just be an anonymous screen name. It is still important that we hold physical conversations with others. While the new technologies have made life easier for me, I too must also realize that visiting my friends and family who live far away is just as important as the new ways I am communicating with the

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Keep Violence out of Political Expression

By: Robert Rodgers


Throughout history, their have been many groups that have used violence as a form of political expression. The first two that come to mind for me are the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing. In both cases, an activist or group of activists attempted to express their political views by using mass terrorism as the vehicle. I, for one, do not believe that violence, such as terrorism or any other type that physically harms someone, should be considered a legitimate form of political expression. While I do not agree with all the laws in our democratic society, murder is one of the laws I feel very strongly about. While those victims may not have been “innocent” in the eyes of Timothy McVeigh or Al-Qaeda, I feel that those people should not have been murdered. I believe there are other more legitimate and ethical ways to express political feelings and views. Violence opposes some of the fundamental rules of not only society, but civic engagement as well. As Patricia Roberts-Miller notes, it is important to have emotion and passion in political expression, but we must keep out terrorism and violence because they are unethical forms of political action.

In a true democratic society, everyone should have an equal voice. While this does not always hold true, it is still possible to form a political action group and fight for or against a policy or law you feel strongly about. Peaceful protests can be very powerful and they have worked in the past. I believe that activists should be expressing their views towards the policies and rules they disagree with, not the people behind them. No one deserves to die because of what they choose to agree or disagree with. The point of a democratic society is to let different voices and views be expressed, and I believe the best way to express those views is peacefully.

I am not saying that violence is not effective; I am just saying that it is unethical and wrong. Violence and terrorism can be a very powerful expression. It certainly catches everyone’s attention and the media publicizes the actions to the world. Some laws in society are unfair and unjust, allowing certain privileged people to succeed. However, murder is not one of those laws. I strongly advocate people standing up for what they believe in and doing what feels right, but do so in a peaceful manner.

Where is the line drawn then? I feel that if your political expression endangers the life or safety of another human being, then it should not be practiced. If you disagree with government policies, there is no need to bomb a federal building to express your views. Killing others that have different political or moral views, however radical they may be, creates an unsafe and dangerous environment for everyone. Isn’t the whole idea of civic engagement centered on making the world a better place for everyone to live? I’m all for activism and transgression, and I’m glad people are willing to fight, but we must draw the line somewhere, and hurting others is the place. As the popular saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. Violence and murder as political vehicles may actually end up hurting more people than it helps. To me, that is not legitimate political expression in a democratic society.